Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
The present work compared 2 culture methods and PCR assay for the detection of motile and non-motile Salmonella strains using artificially contaminated poultry feed. The specificity was 1 in all methods. The accuracy and sensitivity were between 0.5 and 1 for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these parameters were between 0 and 0.6 for non-motile Salmonella strains. The positive predictive value was 1 for tetrathionate (TT), PCR, and modified semisolid [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Maria Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Mario
dc.contributor.authorBueno, Dante Javier
dc.contributor.authorColazo, Jose
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-06T13:55:18Z
dc.date.available2019-12-06T13:55:18Z
dc.date.issued2011-11
dc.identifier.issn0032-5791
dc.identifier.issn1525-3171
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01548
dc.identifier.urihttps://academic.oup.com/ps/article/90/11/2606/1503580
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6465
dc.description.abstractThe present work compared 2 culture methods and PCR assay for the detection of motile and non-motile Salmonella strains using artificially contaminated poultry feed. The specificity was 1 in all methods. The accuracy and sensitivity were between 0.5 and 1 for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these parameters were between 0 and 0.6 for non-motile Salmonella strains. The positive predictive value was 1 for tetrathionate (TT), PCR, and modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV) methods in most of the strains studied. The negative predictive value of each method was very low for non-motile Salmonella strains. The detection level of motile strains was 8 to 20 cfu/25 g for all methods, whereas it was ≥104 cfu/25 g in culture methods for non-motile Salmonella strains. In general, the PCR method detected lower non-motile Salmonella contamination levels in feed than did culture methods. Extending incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. All selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. Kappa coefficients showed that there was good agreement between TT and MSRV methods, and MSRV and PCR methods for motile Salmonella strains in poultry feed samples. The agreement was fair between TT and PCR methods for these strains. For non-motile Salmonella strains, there was poor (TT and MSRV methods), slight (PCR and TT methods), and fair (MSRV and PCR methods) agreement. The TT, MSRV, and PCR methods are similar in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for different motile Salmonella strains in poultry feed. For non-motile Salmonella strains, the use of the PCR method improves the same parameters, described before, in this matrix. The difference in detection levels obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains and the difficulty to detect these last strains represent a potential problem, when a poultry feed sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherOxford Academic Presses_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_AR
dc.sourcePoultry Science 90 (11) : 2606–2618 (November 2011)es_AR
dc.subjectAves de Corrales_AR
dc.subjectPoultryeng
dc.subjectEnfermedades de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Diseaseseng
dc.subjectSalmonellaes_AR
dc.subjectTécnicas de Cultivoes_AR
dc.subjectCulture Techniqueseng
dc.subjectPCRes_AR
dc.subjectAlimentación Avícolaes_AR
dc.subjectPoultry Feedingeng
dc.titleA comparative study of culture methods and polymerase chain reaction assay for Salmonella detection in poultry feedes_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenEEA Concepción del Uruguayes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Soria, Maria Cecilia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Soria, Mario Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Bueno, Dante Javier. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Colazo, Jose. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concepción del Uruguay; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record