A comparison of three methods for the isolation of Arcobacter spp. from retail raw poultry in Northern Ireland

29Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that arcobacters, especially Arcobacter butzleri, are potential foodborne pathogens, but standardized detection methods have yet to be established. A study was undertaken to determine which of three isolation methods was the most effective for the isolation of Arcobacter spp. from fresh raw poultry. Method 1 was microaerobic and involved a membrane filtration step followed by plating onto blood agar. Method 2 was also microaerobic and involved enrichment and plating media containing a five-antibiotic cocktail. Method 3 was aerobic and was based on enrichment in a charcoal-based broth containing two antibiotics. Retail poultry samples (n = 50) were obtained from supermarkets in Northern Ireland; the European Community license number was recorded to ensure sample diversity. Presumptive arcobacters were identified using genus-specific and species-specific primers. Method 1 resulted in the lowest recovery of arcobacters (28% of samples positive). The detection rate for method 2 (68%) was higher than that for method 3 (50%), but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). Modification of method 3 by plating the enrichment broth at 24 h, as well as at 48 h, increased recovery to 68%. Use of methods 2 and 3 together increased the number of positive samples detected by approximately 25% compared with use of either method alone. A. butzleri was the most commonly isolated species using all methods. Method 3 detected Arcobacter cryaerophilus in more samples (n = 3) than did methods 1 and 2 (n = 1). Arcobacter skirrowii was detected by only method 3 (n = 1). In terms of sensitivity, ease of use, and diversity of species recovered, modified method 3 was the overall method of choice.

References Powered by Scopus

Revision of Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and Wolinella taxonomy: Emendation of generic descriptions and proposal of Arcobacter gen. nov.

575Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Polyphasic taxonomic study of the emended genus Arcobacter with Arcobacter butzleri comb. nov. and Arcobacter skirrowii sp. nov., an aerotolerant bacterium isolated from veterinary specimens

347Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Characterization of an autotrophic sulfide-oxidizing marine Arcobacter sp. that produces filamentous sulfur

281Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Taxonomy, epidemiology, and clinical relevance of the genus Arcobacter

396Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Arcobacter: An emerging food-borne zoonotic pathogen, its public health concerns and advances in diagnosis and control - A comprehensive review

131Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Relevant aspects of Arcobacter spp. as potential foodborne pathogen

126Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Scullion, R., Harrington, C. S., & Madden, R. H. (2004). A comparison of three methods for the isolation of Arcobacter spp. from retail raw poultry in Northern Ireland. Journal of Food Protection, 67(4), 799–804. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-67.4.799

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

45%

Researcher 3

27%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

18%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6

55%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 3

27%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

9%

Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medic... 1

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 177

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free