MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2280259198 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/89.2.374

Roche/BIOTECON Diagnostics LightCycler foodproof L. monocytogenes Detection Kit in Combination with ShortPrep foodproof II Kit: Performance-Tested MethodSM 070401

2006· article· en· W2280259198 sur OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Junge, Kornelia Berghof-Jger, Joseph Odumeru, Denise Akiko Kaji

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of AOAC International · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Guelph
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A method was developed for the detection of L. monocytogenes in food based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This advanced PCR method was designed to reduce the time needed to achieve results from PCR reactions and to enable the user to monitor the amplification of the PCR product simultaneously, in real-time. After DNA isolation using the Roche/BIOTECON Diagnostics ShortPrep foodproof II Kit (formerly called Listeria ShortPrep Kit) designed for the rapid preparation of L. monocytogenes DNA for direct use in PCR, the real-time detection of L. monocytogenes DNA is performed by using the Roche/BIOTECON Diagnostics LightCycler foodproof L. monocytogenes Detection Kit. This kit provides primers and hybridization probes for sequence-specific detection, convenient premixed reagents, and different controls for reliable interpretation of results. For repeatability studies, 20 different foods, covering the 15 food groups recommended from the AOAC Research Institute (AOAC RI) for L. monocytogenes detection were analyzed: raw meats, fresh produce/vegetables, processed meats, seafood, egg and egg products, dairy (cultured/noncultured), spices, dry foods, fruit/juices, uncooked pasta, nuts, confectionery, pet food, food dyes and colorings, and miscellaneous. From each food 20, samples were inoculated with a low level (1-10 colony-forming units (CFU)/25 g) and 20 samples with a high level (10-50 CFU/25 g) of L. monocytogenes. Additionally, 5 uninoculated samples were prepared from each food. The food samples were examined with the test kits and in correlation with the cultural methods according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) or U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook. After 48 h of incubation, the PCR method in all cases showed equal or better results than the reference cultural FDA/BAM or USDA/FSIS methods. Fifteen out of 20 tested food types gave exactly the same amount of positive samples for both methods in both inoculation levels. For 5 out of 20 foodstuffs, the PCR method resulted in more positives than the reference method after 48 h of incubation. Following AOAC RI definition, these were false positives because they were not confirmed by the reference method (false-positive rate for low inoculated foodstuffs: 5.4%; for high inoculated foodstuffs: 7.1%). Without calculating these unconfirmed positives, the PCR method showed equal sensitivity results compared to the alternative method. With the unconfirmed PCR-positives included into the calculations, the alternative PCR method showed a higher sensitivity than the microbiological methods (low inoculation level: 100 vs 98.0%; sensitivity rate: 1; high inoculation level: 99.7 vs 97.7%; sensitivity rate, 1). All in-house and independently tested uninoculated food samples were negative for L. monocytogenes. The ruggedness testing of both ShortPrep foodproof II Kit and Roche/BIOTECON LightCycler foodproof L. monocytogenes Detection Kit showed no noteworthy influences to any variation of the parameters component concentration, apparatus comparison, tester comparison, and sample volumes. In total, 102 L. monocytogenes isolates (cultures and pure DNA) were tested and detected for the inclusivity study, including all isolates claimed by the AOAC RI. The exclusivity study included 60 non-L. monocytogenes bacteria. None of the tested isolates gave a false-positive result; specificity was 100%. Three different lots were tested in the lot-to-lot study. All 3 lots gave equal results. The stability study was subdivided into 3 parts: long-term study, stress test, and freeze-defrost test. Three lots were tested in 4 time intervals within a period of 13 months. They all gave comparable results for all test intervals. For the stress test, LightCycler L. monocytogenes detection mixes were stored at different temperatures and tested at different time points during 1 month. Stable results were produced at all storage temperatures. The freeze-defrost analysis showed no noteworthy aggravation of test results. The independent validation study examined by Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association Group (CCFRA) demonstrated again that the LightCycler L. monocytogenes detection system shows a comparable sensitivity to reference methods. With both the LightCycler PCR and BAM methods, 19 out of 20 inoculated food samples were detected. The 24 h PCR results generated by the LightCycler system corresponded directly with the FDA/BAM culture results. However, the 48 h PCR results did not relate exactly to the FDA/BAM results, as one sample found to be positive by the 48 h PCR could not be culturally confirmed and another sample which was negative by the 48 h PCR was culturally positive.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,064

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0080,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,003
Bibliométrie0,0110,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0050,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,031

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of AOAC InternationalMême sujetFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityTravaux en français237 207