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

Autores
Soria, Maria Cecilia; Soria, Mario; 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 Salmonellaenterica 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.
EEA Concepción del Uruguay
Fil: Soria, Maria Cecilia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina
Fil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina
Fuente
Poultry Science 91 (3) : 616–626 (March 2012)
Materia
Enfermedades de los Animales
Aves de Corral
Salmonella
PCR
Técnicas de Cultivo
Heces
Animal Diseases
Poultry
Culture Techniques
Faeces
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/6466

id INTADig_6adeaf66c0acbba16bd190c3ce68652b
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/6466
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry fecesSoria, Maria CeciliaSoria, MarioBueno, Dante JavierEnfermedades de los AnimalesAves de CorralSalmonellaPCRTécnicas de CultivoHecesAnimal DiseasesPoultryCulture TechniquesFaecesThe 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 Salmonellaenterica 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.EEA Concepción del UruguayFil: Soria, Maria Cecilia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; ArgentinaFil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; ArgentinaOxford Academic Press2019-12-06T14:10:52Z2019-12-06T14:10:52Z2012-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://academic.oup.com/ps/article/91/3/616/1555236http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/64660032-57911525-3171https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01831Poultry Science 91 (3) : 616–626 (March 2012)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)2025-10-16T09:29:42Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/6466instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-10-16 09:29:42.83INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
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, Maria Cecilia
Enfermedades de los Animales
Aves de Corral
Salmonella
PCR
Técnicas de Cultivo
Heces
Animal Diseases
Poultry
Culture Techniques
Faeces
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, Maria Cecilia
Soria, Mario
Bueno, Dante Javier
author Soria, Maria Cecilia
author_facet Soria, Maria Cecilia
Soria, Mario
Bueno, Dante Javier
author_role author
author2 Soria, Mario
Bueno, Dante Javier
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Enfermedades de los Animales
Aves de Corral
Salmonella
PCR
Técnicas de Cultivo
Heces
Animal Diseases
Poultry
Culture Techniques
Faeces
topic Enfermedades de los Animales
Aves de Corral
Salmonella
PCR
Técnicas de Cultivo
Heces
Animal Diseases
Poultry
Culture Techniques
Faeces
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 Salmonellaenterica 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.
EEA Concepción del Uruguay
Fil: Soria, Maria Cecilia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina
Fil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; 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 Salmonellaenterica 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
2019-12-06T14:10:52Z
2019-12-06T14:10:52Z
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 https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/91/3/616/1555236
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6466
0032-5791
1525-3171
https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01831
url https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/91/3/616/1555236
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6466
https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01831
identifier_str_mv 0032-5791
1525-3171
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford Academic Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford Academic Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Poultry Science 91 (3) : 616–626 (March 2012)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1846143521342357504
score 12.712165