Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in salmon using the probelia polymerase chain reaction system

16Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A validation was conducted on the performance of a commercially available polymerase chain reaction (PCR) kit (Probelia) in comparison with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) method 11290-1 (adopted as an Australian New Zealand Standard Method, AS/NZS 1766.2.16.1:1998) for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in salmon samples. The validation was conducted following the guidelines of an Australian New Zealand Standard (Guide to Determining the Equivalence of Food Microbiology Test Methods, Part 1, Qualitative Tests, AS/NZS 4659.1:1999), which adopts an approach similar to that recommended by the Association of Analytical Communities Microbiology Method Validation Program for Performance Tested and Peer Verified Methods. The validation study involved the use of five cultures of L. monocytogenes, each challenged at a single level of inoculation into five different types of salmon samples. A total of 60 salmon samples (30 unchallenged and 30 challenged) were tested using both the PCR method and the ISO method. Results from this study indicated that the Probelia PCR method is equivalent to the ISO method. In addition, the detection sensitivity of the Probelia PCR system was determined as approximately 0.5 CFU per PCR assay (equivalent to 20 CFU/ml broth culture) for a pure culture of L. monocytogenes. The Probelia PCR method offers the advantage of detecting L. monocytogenes to genetic specificity within 48 to 50 h, whereas the ISO method requires 5 days for negative results with additional days for confirmed positive results by the use of other biochemical and cultural tests.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wan, J., King, K., Forsyth, S., & Coventry, M. J. (2003). Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in salmon using the probelia polymerase chain reaction system. Journal of Food Protection, 66(3), 436–440. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-66.3.436

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free