Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
The present work compared 2 culture methods and PCR assays for motile and nonmotile Salmonella detection using artificially contaminated poultry drinking water. The specificity was 1 for all methods studied. The accuracy and sensitivity were 1 for all motile strains, whereas these parameters were between 0 and 0.7 for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 1 for all motile Salmonella strains in the 3 [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Maria Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Mario
dc.contributor.authorBueno, Dante Javier
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-06T14:51:32Z
dc.date.available2019-12-06T14:51:32Z
dc.date.issued2013-01
dc.identifier.issn0032-5791
dc.identifier.issn1525-3171
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02254
dc.identifier.urihttps://academic.oup.com/ps/article/92/1/225/1554522
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6468
dc.description.abstractThe present work compared 2 culture methods and PCR assays for motile and nonmotile Salmonella detection using artificially contaminated poultry drinking water. The specificity was 1 for all methods studied. The accuracy and sensitivity were 1 for all motile strains, whereas these parameters were between 0 and 0.7 for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 1 for all motile Salmonella strains in the 3 methods used. Nonmotile Salmonella strains showed a positive predictive value of 1 in the PCR method. However, the positive predictive value was indeterminate in the tetrathionate (TT) methods for both strains tested and in the modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV) method for Salmonella Pullorum. On the other hand, the negative predictive value was between 0.20 and 0.43 for the 3 methods. The detection level of motile strains was 4 to 7 cfu/25 mL for all methods. Nonmotile Salmonella strains could not be detected in the TT method, whereas only Salmonella Gallinarum could be recovered from 1.1 × 101 cfu/25 mL in the MSRV method. In relation to the molecular methods, PCR could detect these strains from 1.1 × 104 cfu/25 mL. Extending 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. The kappa coefficient showed that there was an excellent agreement between the 3 methods for motile strains. For nonmotile strains, the agreement was poor between the MSRV and the PCR; there was no agreement when the TT method was compared with the MSRV and the PCR methods. The difference in detection levels obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains and the difficulty in detecting these last strains represents a potential problem when a poultry water 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 92 (1) : 225–232 (January 2013)es_AR
dc.subjectAves de Corrales_AR
dc.subjectPoultryeng
dc.subjectSalmonellaes_AR
dc.subjectAgua Potablees_AR
dc.subjectDrinking Watereng
dc.subjectEnfermedades de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Diseaseseng
dc.subjectTécnicas de Cultivoes_AR
dc.subjectCulture Techniqueseng
dc.subjectPCRes_AR
dc.titleA comparative study of culture methods and PCR assay for Salmonella detection in poultry drinking wateres_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