Evaluation of test-kits for the detection of Escherichia coli O157 in raw meats and cattle faeces.

Hilda Nyati ,
Hilda Nyati
Contact Hilda Nyati

Food Safety Authority (VWA) , Zutphen , Netherlands

National University of Science and Technology , Bulawayo , Zimbabwe

Annet Heuvelink ,
Annet Heuvelink

Food Safety Authority (VWA) , Zutphen , Netherlands

Caroliene Van Heerwaarden ,
Caroliene Van Heerwaarden

Food Safety Authority (VWA) , Zutphen , Netherlands

Ans Zwartkruis
Ans Zwartkruis

Food Safety Authority (VWA) , Zuthpen , Netherlands

Published: 18.10.2012.

Volume 1, Issue 2 (2012)

pp. 126-134;

https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs.v1i2.49

Abstract

Escherichia coli O157 detection limits in artificially contaminated beef and cattle faeces samples were determined using Dynabeads anti E. coli O157 immunomagnetic beads, VIDAS-UP, VIDAS-ICE, and real-time PCR (GeneDisc and LightCycler) systems. Dynabeads anti-E. coli O157 immunomagnetic separation (IMS) and the GeneDisc cycler were the most sensitive methods, and could detect an initial 1 CFU in 25g beef samples after 6h of incubation in modified tryptone soya broth with novobiocin (mTSB+n) or buffered peptone water (BPW). The VIDAS-UP method could detect an initial 10 CFU, while VIDAS-ICE and the LightCycler methods could only detect an initial 100 CFU. Higher detection rates were achieved with 18 hour incubations, where an initial 1 CFU in a 25g sample could be detected with all five methods. For cattle faeces enrichments, Dynabeads anti-E. coli O157 IMS could detect an initial 1 CFU after a 6 h incubation in mTSB+n, while the VIDAS-UP and VIDAS-ICE methods could detect an initial 10 CFU and both PCR methods could only detect an initial 100 CFU. Detection rates were lower in BPW, compared to mTSB+n, with thresholds of 100 CFU for VIDAS-ICE, VIDAS-UP and GeneDisc methods, and >100 CFU for the LightCycler method.

Keywords

References

1.
Ateba C, Bezuidenhout C. Characterisation of Escherichia coli O157 strains from humans, cattle and pigs in the North-West Province, South Africa. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008;(2):181–8.
2.
VIDAS Immuno-Concentration E. coli O157 (ICE) manual. 2008;
3.
IJFS October. 2012;133.
4.
VIDAS UP E. coli O157 (ECPT) manual. 2009;
5.
Buchanan R, Doyle M. Foodborne disease significance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Food Technology. 1997;(10):69–76.
6.
Cdc. Foodborne illness. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005;
7.
Fonseca J, Fallon S, Sanchez C, Nolte K. Escherichia coli survival in lettuce fields following its introduction through different irrigation systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2011;(4):893–902.
8.
Fratamico J, Smith P. Foodborne infections and intoxications. 2006;205–58.
9.
Genesystems. Food extraction pack (01) manual. 2009;
10.
Genesystems. Genedisc (pathogenic E. coli O157) manual. 2009;
11.
Heijnen L, Medema G. Quantitative detection of E. coli , E. coli O157 and other shiga toxin producing E. coli in water samples using a culture method combined with real-time pcr. Journal of Water and Health. 2006;487–98.
12.
ISO 16654:2001(e): microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs -horizontal method for the detection of Escherichia coli O157. 2001;
13.
Invitrogen-Dynal. Product manual: dynabeads anti-E. coli O157. 2007;
14.
Islam M, Heuvelink A, Talukder K, De Boer E. Immunoconcentration of Shiga toxin-producing Es-cherichia coli O157 from animal faeces and raw meats by using Dynabeads anti-Ecoli O157 and the VIDAS system. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006;(1–2):151–6.
15.
Lejeune J, Hancock D, Besser T. Sensitivity of Escherichia coli O157 detection in bovine feces assessed by broth enrichment followed by immunomagnetic separation and direct plating methodologies. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2006;(3):872–5.
16.
Lindstedt B, Heir E, Gjernes E, Vardund T, Kapperud G. DNA fingerprinting of shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli O157 based on multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeats analysis (MLVA). Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2003;(12):1–7.
17.
Meng J, Doyle M, Zhao T, Zhao S. Food Microbiology -Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2007;249–70.
18.
Ohtsuka K, Tanaka M, Ohtsuka T, Takatori K, Hara-Kudo Y. Comparison of detection methods for Escherichia coli O157 in beef livers and carcasses. Foodborne Pathogens And Disease. 2010;(12):1563–7.
19.
Rangel J, Sparling P, Crowe C, Griffin P, Swerdlow D. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157 : H7 outbreaks. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005;(4):603–9.
20.
Reinders R, Barna A, Lipman L, Bijker P. Comparison of the sensitivity of manual and automated immunomagnetic separation methods for detection of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 : H7 in milk. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2002;(6):1015–20.
21.
Diagnostics R. LightCycler ® Taqman ® Master Manual. 2006;
22.
IJFS October. 2012;126–34.
23.
Smith J, Fratamico P. Chap. Diarrheainducing Escherichia coli. 2005;357–82.
24.
Stirling A, Mc Cartney G, Ahmed S, Cowden J. An outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 Phage type 2 infection in. Eurosurveillance. 2007;268–9.
25.
Vernozy-Rozand C, Mazuy C, Ray-Gueniot S, Boutrand-Loei S, Meyrand A, Richard Y. Evaluation of the VI-DAS methodology for detection of Escherichia coli O157 in food samples. Journal of Food Protection. 1998;(7):917–20.
26.
Wright D, Chapman P, Siddons C. Immunomagnetic separation as a sensitive method for isolating Escherichia coli O157 from food samples. Epidemiology and Infection. 1994;(1):31–9.
27.
IJFS October. 2012;126–34.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by