乳制品行业相关微生物快速检测产品种类的空白。

2区 生物学 Q1 Immunology and Microbiology
Advances in applied microbiology Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-14 DOI:10.1016/bs.aambs.2020.07.001
John O'Grady, Ultan Cronin, Joseph Tierney, Anna V Piterina, Elaine O'Meara, Martin G Wilkinson
{"title":"乳制品行业相关微生物快速检测产品种类的空白。","authors":"John O'Grady, Ultan Cronin, Joseph Tierney, Anna V Piterina, Elaine O'Meara, Martin G Wilkinson","doi":"10.1016/bs.aambs.2020.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review presents the results of a study into the offering of rapid microbial detection assays to the Irish dairy industry. At the outset, a consultation process was undertaken whereby key stakeholders were asked to compile a list of the key microorganisms of interest to the sector. The resultant list comprises 19 organisms/groups of organisms divided into five categories: single pathogenic species (Cronobacter sakazakii, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes); genera containing pathogenic species (Bacillus, Clostridium, Listeria, Salmonella; Staphylococcus); broad taxonomic groupings (Coliforms, Enterobacteriaceae, fecal Streptococci, sulfite reducing bacteria/sulfite reducing Clostridia [SRBs/SRCs], yeasts and molds); organisms displaying certain growth preferences or resistance as regards temperature (endospores, psychrotrophs, thermodurics, thermophiles); indicators of quality (total plate count, Pseudomonas spp.). A survey of the rapid assays commercially available for the 19 organisms/groups of organisms was conducted. A wide disparity between the number of rapid tests available was found. Four categories were used to summarize the availability of rapid assays per organism/group of organisms: high coverage (>15 assays available); medium coverage (5-15 assays available); low coverage (<5 assays available); no coverage (0 assays available). Generally, species or genera containing pathogens, whose presence is regulated-for, tend to have a good selection of commercially available rapid assays for their detection, whereas groups composed of heterogenous or even undefined genera of mainly spoilage organisms tend to be \"low coverage\" or \"no coverage.\" Organisms/groups of organisms with \"low coverage\" by rapid assays include: Clostridium spp.; fecal Streptococci; and Pseudomonas spp. Those with \"no coverage\" by rapid assays include: endospores; psychrotrophs; SRB/SRCs; thermodurics; and thermophiles. An important question is: why have manufacturers of rapid microbiological assays failed to respond to the necessity for rapid methods for these organisms/groups of organisms? The review offers explanations, ranging from the technical difficulty involved in detecting as broad a group as the thermodurics, which covers the spores of multiple sporeforming genera as well at least six genera of mesophilic nonsporeformers, to the taxonomically controversial issue as to what constitutes a fecal Streptococcus or SRBs/SRCs. We review two problematic areas for assay developers: validation/certification and the nature of dairy food matrices. Development and implementation of rapid alternative test methods for the dairy industry is influenced by regulations relating to both the microbiological quality standards and the criteria alternative methods must meet to qualify as acceptable test methods. However, the gap between the certification of developer's test systems as valid alternative methods in only a handful of representative matrices, and the requirement of dairy industries to verify the performance of alternative test systems in an extensive and diverse range of dairy matrices needs to be bridged before alternative methods can be widely accepted and adopted in the dairy industry. This study concludes that many important dairy matrices have effectively been ignored by assay developers.</p>","PeriodicalId":7298,"journal":{"name":"Advances in applied microbiology","volume":"113 ","pages":"1-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426214/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in the assortment of rapid assays for microorganisms of interest to the dairy industry.\",\"authors\":\"John O'Grady, Ultan Cronin, Joseph Tierney, Anna V Piterina, Elaine O'Meara, Martin G Wilkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/bs.aambs.2020.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This review presents the results of a study into the offering of rapid microbial detection assays to the Irish dairy industry. At the outset, a consultation process was undertaken whereby key stakeholders were asked to compile a list of the key microorganisms of interest to the sector. The resultant list comprises 19 organisms/groups of organisms divided into five categories: single pathogenic species (Cronobacter sakazakii, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes); genera containing pathogenic species (Bacillus, Clostridium, Listeria, Salmonella; Staphylococcus); broad taxonomic groupings (Coliforms, Enterobacteriaceae, fecal Streptococci, sulfite reducing bacteria/sulfite reducing Clostridia [SRBs/SRCs], yeasts and molds); organisms displaying certain growth preferences or resistance as regards temperature (endospores, psychrotrophs, thermodurics, thermophiles); indicators of quality (total plate count, Pseudomonas spp.). A survey of the rapid assays commercially available for the 19 organisms/groups of organisms was conducted. A wide disparity between the number of rapid tests available was found. Four categories were used to summarize the availability of rapid assays per organism/group of organisms: high coverage (>15 assays available); medium coverage (5-15 assays available); low coverage (<5 assays available); no coverage (0 assays available). Generally, species or genera containing pathogens, whose presence is regulated-for, tend to have a good selection of commercially available rapid assays for their detection, whereas groups composed of heterogenous or even undefined genera of mainly spoilage organisms tend to be \\\"low coverage\\\" or \\\"no coverage.\\\" Organisms/groups of organisms with \\\"low coverage\\\" by rapid assays include: Clostridium spp.; fecal Streptococci; and Pseudomonas spp. Those with \\\"no coverage\\\" by rapid assays include: endospores; psychrotrophs; SRB/SRCs; thermodurics; and thermophiles. An important question is: why have manufacturers of rapid microbiological assays failed to respond to the necessity for rapid methods for these organisms/groups of organisms? The review offers explanations, ranging from the technical difficulty involved in detecting as broad a group as the thermodurics, which covers the spores of multiple sporeforming genera as well at least six genera of mesophilic nonsporeformers, to the taxonomically controversial issue as to what constitutes a fecal Streptococcus or SRBs/SRCs. We review two problematic areas for assay developers: validation/certification and the nature of dairy food matrices. Development and implementation of rapid alternative test methods for the dairy industry is influenced by regulations relating to both the microbiological quality standards and the criteria alternative methods must meet to qualify as acceptable test methods. However, the gap between the certification of developer's test systems as valid alternative methods in only a handful of representative matrices, and the requirement of dairy industries to verify the performance of alternative test systems in an extensive and diverse range of dairy matrices needs to be bridged before alternative methods can be widely accepted and adopted in the dairy industry. This study concludes that many important dairy matrices have effectively been ignored by assay developers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in applied microbiology\",\"volume\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"1-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426214/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in applied microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aambs.2020.07.001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/8/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Immunology and Microbiology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in applied microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aambs.2020.07.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Immunology and Microbiology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本综述介绍了对爱尔兰乳品业提供快速微生物检测化验方法的研究结果。首先,我们开展了一项咨询工作,要求主要利益相关者编制一份该行业感兴趣的主要微生物清单。最终的清单包括 19 种生物/生物组,分为五类:单一致病菌种(阪崎克罗诺杆菌、大肠埃希氏菌和李斯特菌);包含致病菌种的菌属(芽孢杆菌、梭状芽孢杆菌、李斯特菌、沙门氏菌;葡萄球菌);广泛的分类群(大肠菌群、肠杆菌科、粪链球菌、亚硫酸盐还原菌/亚硫酸盐还原梭状芽孢杆菌 [SRBs/SRCs]、酵母菌和霉菌);对温度有一定生长偏好或抵抗力的生物(内生孢子、心理嗜食菌、耐高温菌、嗜热菌);质量指标(总菌落总数、假单胞菌属(Pseudomonas spp.).我们对市场上针对 19 种生物/生物类群的快速检测方法进行了调查。发现现有快速检测方法的数量差距很大。我们将每种生物/每类生物的快速检测方法分为四类:高覆盖率(>15 种检测方法);中等覆盖率(5-15 种检测方法);低覆盖率(5-15 种检测方法);高覆盖率(>15 种检测方法);中等覆盖率(5-15 种检测方法);低覆盖率(5-15 种检测方法)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Gaps in the assortment of rapid assays for microorganisms of interest to the dairy industry.

Gaps in the assortment of rapid assays for microorganisms of interest to the dairy industry.

Gaps in the assortment of rapid assays for microorganisms of interest to the dairy industry.

This review presents the results of a study into the offering of rapid microbial detection assays to the Irish dairy industry. At the outset, a consultation process was undertaken whereby key stakeholders were asked to compile a list of the key microorganisms of interest to the sector. The resultant list comprises 19 organisms/groups of organisms divided into five categories: single pathogenic species (Cronobacter sakazakii, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes); genera containing pathogenic species (Bacillus, Clostridium, Listeria, Salmonella; Staphylococcus); broad taxonomic groupings (Coliforms, Enterobacteriaceae, fecal Streptococci, sulfite reducing bacteria/sulfite reducing Clostridia [SRBs/SRCs], yeasts and molds); organisms displaying certain growth preferences or resistance as regards temperature (endospores, psychrotrophs, thermodurics, thermophiles); indicators of quality (total plate count, Pseudomonas spp.). A survey of the rapid assays commercially available for the 19 organisms/groups of organisms was conducted. A wide disparity between the number of rapid tests available was found. Four categories were used to summarize the availability of rapid assays per organism/group of organisms: high coverage (>15 assays available); medium coverage (5-15 assays available); low coverage (<5 assays available); no coverage (0 assays available). Generally, species or genera containing pathogens, whose presence is regulated-for, tend to have a good selection of commercially available rapid assays for their detection, whereas groups composed of heterogenous or even undefined genera of mainly spoilage organisms tend to be "low coverage" or "no coverage." Organisms/groups of organisms with "low coverage" by rapid assays include: Clostridium spp.; fecal Streptococci; and Pseudomonas spp. Those with "no coverage" by rapid assays include: endospores; psychrotrophs; SRB/SRCs; thermodurics; and thermophiles. An important question is: why have manufacturers of rapid microbiological assays failed to respond to the necessity for rapid methods for these organisms/groups of organisms? The review offers explanations, ranging from the technical difficulty involved in detecting as broad a group as the thermodurics, which covers the spores of multiple sporeforming genera as well at least six genera of mesophilic nonsporeformers, to the taxonomically controversial issue as to what constitutes a fecal Streptococcus or SRBs/SRCs. We review two problematic areas for assay developers: validation/certification and the nature of dairy food matrices. Development and implementation of rapid alternative test methods for the dairy industry is influenced by regulations relating to both the microbiological quality standards and the criteria alternative methods must meet to qualify as acceptable test methods. However, the gap between the certification of developer's test systems as valid alternative methods in only a handful of representative matrices, and the requirement of dairy industries to verify the performance of alternative test systems in an extensive and diverse range of dairy matrices needs to be bridged before alternative methods can be widely accepted and adopted in the dairy industry. This study concludes that many important dairy matrices have effectively been ignored by assay developers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in applied microbiology
Advances in applied microbiology 生物-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Applied Microbiology offers intensive reviews of the latest techniques and discoveries in this rapidly moving field. The editors are recognized experts and the format is comprehensive and instructive. Published since 1959, Advances in Applied Microbiology continues to be one of the most widely read and authoritative review sources in microbiology. Recent areas covered include bacterial diversity in the human gut, protozoan grazing of freshwater biofilms, metals in yeast fermentation processes and the interpretation of host-pathogen dialogue through microarrays.
×
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