Comparison of PCR-ELISA and LightCycler real-time PCR assays for detecting Salmonella spp. in milk and meat samples.

In a previous study, we reported the performance of a PCR assay amplifying 285-bp of the invA gene of Salmonella spp. through an international ring-trial involving four participating laboratories [Int. J. Food Microbiol. 89 (2003) 241]. Based on the validated set of primers and recent advancements in PCR technology, we have designed two specific PCR assays for detecting Salmonella spp. We have compared PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA) and LightCycler real-time PCR assay (LC-PCR) with the standard ISO 6579 bacteriological reference method. The two PCR tests incorporated an internal amplification control (IAC) co-amplified with the invA gene of Salmonella to monitor potential PCR inhibitors and ensure successful amplification. The selectivity study involved 84 Salmonella and 44 non-Salmonella strains and the samples tested were represented by 60 artificially-contaminated samples of fish, minced beef and raw milk, and 92 naturally-contaminated milk and meat samples. When using either PCR-ELISA or LC-PCR assays, only Salmonella strains were detected. PCR-ELISA and LC-PCR assays gave with pure Salmonella cultures the same detection limit level of 10(3)CFU/ml, which corresponds respectively to 50 and 10 cells per PCR tube. Data on artificially contaminated samples indicated that both PCR methods were able to detect after enrichment less than five Salmonella cells in 25 g of food, giving 100% concordance with the ISO 6579 reference method. The results on naturally contaminated samples demonstrated that despite certain inhibition problems, LC-PCR and PCR-ELISA assays were highly specific and sensitive, and provide a powerful tool for detection of Salmonella in food samples.

[1]  Pina M Fratamico,et al.  Comparison of culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), TaqMan Salmonella, and Transia Card Salmonella assays for detection of Salmonella spp. in naturally-contaminated ground chicken, ground turkey, and ground beef. , 2003, Molecular and cellular probes.

[2]  A. Bhagwat,et al.  Rapid detection of Salmonella from vegetable rinse-water using real-time PCR , 2004 .

[3]  P. Fach,et al.  Interlaboratory diagnostic accuracy of a Salmonella specific PCR-based method. , 2003, International journal of food microbiology.

[4]  J. Hoorfar,et al.  Automated 5′ Nuclease PCR Assay for Identification of Salmonella enterica , 2000, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[5]  R. Etzel,et al.  Incidence of foodborne illnesses reported by the foodborne diseases active surveillance network (FoodNet)-1997. FoodNet Working Group. , 2000, Journal of food protection.

[6]  W. Rabsch,et al.  Public-health aspects of Salmonella infection. , 2000 .

[7]  S A McEwen,et al.  Amplification of an invA gene sequence of Salmonella typhimurium by polymerase chain reaction as a specific method of detection of Salmonella. , 1992, Molecular and cellular probes.

[8]  M. Uyttendaele,et al.  Evaluation of real‐time PCR vs automated ELISA and a conventional culture method using a semi‐solid medium for detection of Salmonella , 2003, Letters in Applied Microbiology.

[9]  A. Bhagwat Simultaneous detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella strains by real-time PCR. , 2003, International journal of food microbiology.

[10]  Reiner Helmuth,et al.  Multicenter Validation of the Analytical Accuracy of Salmonella PCR: towards an International Standard , 2003, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[11]  Elisabetta Delibato,et al.  Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Combination with SYBR Green I Real-Time PCR To Detect Salmonella enterica Serotype Enteritidis in Poultry , 2003, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[12]  Burkhard Malorny,et al.  Making Internal Amplification Control Mandatory for Diagnostic PCR , 2003, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[13]  P. Fach,et al.  Evaluation of a polymerase chain reaction-based test for detecting Salmonella spp. in food samples: Probelia Salmonella spp. , 1999, Journal of food protection.

[14]  P. Fach,et al.  Comparison between a PCR‐ELISA test and the vero cell assay for detecting Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli in dairy products and characterization of virulence traits of the isolated strains , 2001, Journal of applied microbiology.

[15]  A. Eyigor,et al.  Rapid Detection of Salmonella from Poultry by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction with Fluorescent Hybridization Probes , 2003, Avian diseases.

[16]  A Mulchandani,et al.  Molecular beacons: a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for detecting Salmonella. , 2000, Analytical biochemistry.

[17]  J. Hoorfar,et al.  A PCR-based strategy for simple and rapid identification of rough presumptive Salmonella isolates. , 1999, Journal of microbiological methods.

[18]  A. Eyigor,et al.  Implementation of real‐time PCR to tetrathionate broth enrichment step of Salmonella detection in poultry , 2002, Letters in applied microbiology.

[19]  J. Karns,et al.  Using a portable real-time PCR assay to detect Salmonella in raw milk. , 2003, Journal of food protection.

[20]  Marta Hernández,et al.  A rapid and direct real time PCR-based method for identification of Salmonella spp. , 2003, Journal of microbiological methods.

[21]  B. Hargis,et al.  Tracing the Origins of Salmonella Outbreaks , 2000, Science.

[22]  C Tirado,et al.  WHO surveillance programme for control of foodborne infections and intoxications: preliminary results and trends across greater Europe. World Health Organization. , 2001, The Journal of infection.

[23]  C. Wray,et al.  Salmonella in Domestic Animals , 2000 .

[24]  N. Bean,et al.  Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks--United States, 1993-1997. , 2000, MMWR. CDC surveillance summaries : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. CDC surveillance summaries.