Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces

Autores
Soria, María Cecilia; Soria, Mario Alberto; Bueno, Dante Javier
Año de publicación
2012
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×100 to 22 × 102 cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 102 cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 100 cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water- PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.
Fil: Soria, María Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
Fil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
Materia
CULTURE METHOD
POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION
POULTRY FECAL SAMPLE
SALMONELLA
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/194821

id CONICETDig_cd6846783116679a6a9ae185cfac70d5
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/194821
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry fecesSoria, María CeciliaSoria, Mario AlbertoBueno, Dante JavierCULTURE METHODPOLYMERASE CHAIN REACTIONPOULTRY FECAL SAMPLESALMONELLAhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×100 to 22 × 102 cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 102 cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 100 cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water- PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.Fil: Soria, María Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; ArgentinaFil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; ArgentinaFil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; ArgentinaElsevier2012-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/194821Soria, María Cecilia; Soria, Mario Alberto; Bueno, Dante Javier; Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces; Elsevier; Poultry Science; 91; 3; 3-2012; 616-6260032-5791CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0032579119402241info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3382/ps.2011-01831info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:50:52Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/194821instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:50:52.373CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
title Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
spellingShingle Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
Soria, María Cecilia
CULTURE METHOD
POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION
POULTRY FECAL SAMPLE
SALMONELLA
title_short Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
title_full Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
title_fullStr Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
title_sort Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Soria, María Cecilia
Soria, Mario Alberto
Bueno, Dante Javier
author Soria, María Cecilia
author_facet Soria, María Cecilia
Soria, Mario Alberto
Bueno, Dante Javier
author_role author
author2 Soria, Mario Alberto
Bueno, Dante Javier
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv CULTURE METHOD
POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION
POULTRY FECAL SAMPLE
SALMONELLA
topic CULTURE METHOD
POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION
POULTRY FECAL SAMPLE
SALMONELLA
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×100 to 22 × 102 cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 102 cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 100 cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water- PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.
Fil: Soria, María Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
Fil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Rios. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay. Laboratorio de Sanidad Aviar; Argentina
description The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×100 to 22 × 102 cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 102 cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 100 cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water- PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-03
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/194821
Soria, María Cecilia; Soria, Mario Alberto; Bueno, Dante Javier; Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces; Elsevier; Poultry Science; 91; 3; 3-2012; 616-626
0032-5791
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/194821
identifier_str_mv Soria, María Cecilia; Soria, Mario Alberto; Bueno, Dante Javier; Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces; Elsevier; Poultry Science; 91; 3; 3-2012; 616-626
0032-5791
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0032579119402241
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3382/ps.2011-01831
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846083033691586560
score 13.22299