Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Maria Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Mario
dc.contributor.authorBueno, Dante Javier
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-06T14:10:52Z
dc.date.available2019-12-06T14:10:52Z
dc.date.issued2012-03
dc.identifier.issn0032-5791
dc.identifier.issn1525-3171
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01831
dc.identifier.urihttps://academic.oup.com/ps/article/91/3/616/1555236
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6466
dc.description.abstractThe present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonellaenterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×100 to 22 × 102 cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 102 cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 100 cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water-PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal 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 91 (3) : 616–626 (March 2012)es_AR
dc.subjectEnfermedades de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Diseaseseng
dc.subjectAves de Corrales_AR
dc.subjectPoultryeng
dc.subjectSalmonellaes_AR
dc.subjectPCRes_AR
dc.subjectTécnicas de Cultivoes_AR
dc.subjectCulture Techniqueseng
dc.subjectHeceses_AR
dc.subjectFaeceseng
dc.titleComparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feceses_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.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record