Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of magnetic immuno-polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of Salmonella spp. in chicken meats

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since contaminated chicken meats have been the principal foodborne source of the contamination of Salmonella to human beings and cultural detection methods are labor-intensive and time-consuming, a study evaluating the performance of the combination of two techniques that are immunomagnetic separation (IMS) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the detection of Salmonella in chicken meats was conducted. The IMS and PCR assay combines selective extraction of Salmonella by specific antibodies with primer-specific (primer pair based on the sequence of invA gene) PCR amplification. Initially chicken meat samples, in which no Salmonella contamination had been determined by using ISO 6579 reference method, were inoculated with Salmonella Enteritidis culture and subsequently the shortest non-selective pre-enrichment time, that had been needed for the detection of approximately 1 or 10 CFU/mL chicken meat levels of target bacteria by magnetic immuno-PCR assay, was found by using 14, 12, 10 and 8-h periods. In conclusion, it was found that magnetic immuno-PCR assay was able to detect 1–10 CFU Salmonella/25 g chicken meat, after only incorporating a non-selective pre-enrichment period of 12 h. Therefore, an overall 16-h (magnetic immuno-PCR assay in conjunction with 12-h non-selective pre-enrichment) magnetic immuno-PCR assay statistically evaluated as sufficient (p = 0.182 > 0.05) for rapid and sensitive detection of approximately 1–10 CFU Salmonella from 25 g chicken meat samples. Accordingly, 16-h magnetic immuno-PCR assay can be promising for routine use in the detection of Salmonella in chicken meat samples, and it consequently may prevent the risk of Salmonella infections in regard to chicken meats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boraychuk VM, Gensler GE, McFall ME, King RK, Renter DG (2007) J Food Prot 70(5):1080–1087

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen S, Yee A, Griffiths M, Larkin C, Yamashiro CT, Behari R, Paszko-Kolva C, Rahn K, De Grandis SA (1997) Int J Food Microbiol 35:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Da Conceição RDD, Moreira AN, Ramos RJ, Goularte FL, Carvalhal JB, Aleixo JAG (2008) Braz J Microbiol 39(1):173–177

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fluit AC, Widjojoatmodjo MN, Box ATA, Torensma R, Verhoef J (1993) Appl Environ Microbiol 59(5):1342–1346

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia-del Portillo F (2000) In: Cary JW, Linz JE, Bhatnagar D (eds) Microbial foodborne diseases: mechanisms of pathogenesis and toxin synthesis. Technomic Publishing Company, USA, pp 1–51

  6. Hagren V, Von Lode P, Syrjala A, Korpimaki T, Tuomola M, Kauko O, Nurmi J (2008) Int J Food Microbiol 125(2):158–161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hsih HY, Tsen H-Y (2001) J Food Prot 64(11):1744–1750

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Isidori M, Pascarella L, Parrella A (2007) J Prev Med Hyg 48(2):60–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeníková G, Pazlarová J, Demnerová K (2000) Int Microbiol 3:225–229

    Google Scholar 

  10. Löfström C, Knutsson R, Axelsson CE, Rådström P (2004) Appl Environ Microbiol 70(1):69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Malorny B (2004) J AOAC Int 87(4):861–866

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mandrell RE, Wachtel MR (1999) Curr Opin Biotechnol 10:273–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mansfield LP, Forsythe SJ (1996) Int J Food Microbiol 29:41–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mercanoglu B, Griffiths MW (2005) J Food Prot 68(3):557–561

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mercanoglu B, Aytac SA (2002) Arch Lebensmittelhyg 53(2):43–45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Moreira AN, Conceição FR, Conceição Rde C, Ramos RJ, Carvalhal JB, Dellagostin OA, Aleixo JA (2008) J Immunoassay Immunochem 29(1):58–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Notzon A, Helmuth R, Bauer J (2006) J Food Prot 69(12):2896–2901

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Oliveira SD, Santos LR, Schuch DMT, Silva AB, Salle CTP, Canal CW (2002) Vet Microbiol 87:25–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rahn K, de Grandis SA, Clarke RC, McEwen SA, Galan JE, Ginocchio C, Curtis RIII, Gyles CL (1992) Mol Cell Probes 6:271–279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rijpens N, Herman L, Vereecken F, Jannes G, Smedt JD, Zutter LD (1999) Int J Food Microbiol 46:37–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ripabelli G, Sammarco ML, Ruberto A, Iannitto G, Grasso GM (1997) Lett Appl Microbiol 24:493–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Skjerve E, Olsvik O (1991) Int J Food Microbiol 14:11–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Soumet C, Blivet D, Ermel G, Colin P, Salvat G (1999) Int J Food Microbiol 48:221–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Španová A, Rittich B, Horák D, Lenfeld J, Prodělalová J, Sučiková J, Štrumcová S (2003) J Chromatogr A 1009:215–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Španová A, Rittich B, Karpíšková R, Čechová L, Škapová D (2001) Bioseparation 9:379–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Suslow TV, Wu J, Fett WF, Harris LJ (2002) J Food Prot 65(3):452–458

    Google Scholar 

  27. Warren BR, Yuk HG, Schneider KR (2007) J Food Prot 70(4):1002–1006

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Whyte P, Mc Gill K, Collins JD, Gormley E (2002) Vet Microbiol 89:53–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Widjojoatmodjo MN, Fluit AC, Torensma R, Keller BHI, Verhoef J (1991) Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 10(11):935–938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to Hacettepe University Research Center Office for financially supporting this study with a project numbered as 03.02.602.006, in Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Birce Mercanoglu Taban

    Present address: Vocational School of Health Services, Gazi University, Golbasi, Ankara, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey

    Birce Mercanoglu Taban & Sait A. Aytac

Authors
  1. Birce Mercanoglu Taban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sait A. Aytac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birce Mercanoglu Taban.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mercanoglu Taban, B., Aytac, S.A. Application of magnetic immuno-polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of Salmonella spp. in chicken meats. Eur Food Res Technol 229, 623–628 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1091-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1091-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation