Efficiency of two commercial ELISA kits compared with the BAM culture method for detecting Listeria in naturally contaminated foods.

C W Noah, N C Ramos, M V Gipson
{"title":"Efficiency of two commercial ELISA kits compared with the BAM culture method for detecting Listeria in naturally contaminated foods.","authors":"C W Noah,&nbsp;N C Ramos,&nbsp;M V Gipson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The efficiency of 2 commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Listeria-Tek and Tecra) for detecting Listeria in naturally contaminated foods was evaluated and compared with that of the culture method described in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). Both ELISAs use modified University of Vermont (UVM-1) medium as a primary enrichment; the BAM method uses Listeria enrichment broth. Secondary enrichments for Listeria-Tek and Tecra, respectively, were Fraser broth and UVM-2, which contains additional acriflavin-HCl. When ELISA test results differed, secondary enrichments were tested against the other ELISA; Fraser broth was used to determine recovery rates because of its superiority over UVM-2. Of the 178 food samples examined, the presence of Listeria was detected and culturally confirmed in 38, 37, and 40 samples by the BAM, Listeria-Tek, and Tecra methods, respectively. Differences in results of the ELISAs compared with those of the BAM method were not statistically significant; however, differences between results of the 2 ELISA methods were significant. It was concluded that as rapid screening methods, the Listeria-Tek and the Tecra kits qualify as alternative methods to the BAM cultural method.</p>","PeriodicalId":14752,"journal":{"name":"Journal - Association of Official Analytical Chemists","volume":"74 5","pages":"819-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal - Association of Official Analytical Chemists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficiency of 2 commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Listeria-Tek and Tecra) for detecting Listeria in naturally contaminated foods was evaluated and compared with that of the culture method described in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). Both ELISAs use modified University of Vermont (UVM-1) medium as a primary enrichment; the BAM method uses Listeria enrichment broth. Secondary enrichments for Listeria-Tek and Tecra, respectively, were Fraser broth and UVM-2, which contains additional acriflavin-HCl. When ELISA test results differed, secondary enrichments were tested against the other ELISA; Fraser broth was used to determine recovery rates because of its superiority over UVM-2. Of the 178 food samples examined, the presence of Listeria was detected and culturally confirmed in 38, 37, and 40 samples by the BAM, Listeria-Tek, and Tecra methods, respectively. Differences in results of the ELISAs compared with those of the BAM method were not statistically significant; however, differences between results of the 2 ELISA methods were significant. It was concluded that as rapid screening methods, the Listeria-Tek and the Tecra kits qualify as alternative methods to the BAM cultural method.

两种商用ELISA试剂盒与BAM培养法检测天然污染食品中李斯特菌的效率比较。
评价了两种商用酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)试剂盒(Listeria- tek和Tecra)检测天然污染食品中李斯特菌的效率,并与《细菌学分析手册》(BAM)中描述的培养方法进行了比较。两种elisa都使用改良的University of Vermont (UVM-1)培养基作为初级富集;BAM法采用李斯特菌富集肉汤。Listeria-Tek和Tecra的二级富集分别是Fraser肉汤和UVM-2,其中含有额外的吖啶黄素- hcl。当ELISA检测结果不一致时,用另一ELISA检测二次富集;由于弗雷泽肉汤优于UVM-2,因此采用弗雷泽肉汤测定回收率。在检查的178份食品样品中,分别通过BAM、Listeria- tek和Tecra方法在38份、37份和40份样品中检测到李斯特菌的存在并进行了文化鉴定。elisa结果与BAM法比较,差异无统计学意义;两种ELISA检测结果差异有统计学意义。结果表明,作为快速筛选方法,Listeria-Tek和Tecra试剂盒可作为BAM培养方法的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信