MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013398358 · doi:10.3201/eid1611.100877

Enteric Viruses in Ready-to-Eat Packaged Leafy Greens

2010· letter· en· W2013398358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kirsten Mattison, Jennifer Harlow, Vanessa Morton, Angela Cook, Frank Pollari, Sabah Bidawid, Jeffrey M. Farber

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeafy vegetablesVirologyLeafyBiologyMicrobiologyFood scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Fresh produce increasingly has been implicated in viral disease outbreaks (1). In some instances, lettuce was contaminated before wholesale distribution (1). Enteric viruses can be introduced in the field if produce is exposed to human waste. Processed and packaged produce can be contaminated if equipment or wash water is not effectively sanitized. Fewer than 10 infectious viral particles are sufficient to cause disease (2), and these organisms are resistant to disinfectants at concentrations that reduce bacterial levels (3). Contamination of fresh produce could pose a health risk to humans because fresh produce is eaten raw. High levels of viral contamination can result in large outbreaks, but intermittent contamination of fresh produce accounts for some sporadic cases of norovirus and rotavirus gastroenteritis. During April 27–November 23, 2009, we performed viral testing on 328 samples of packaged leafy greens (representing 12–14 different lots from 3–6 companies per week; no samples were taken on weeks with a statutory holiday) for norovirus or rotavirus RNA. Packaged leafy greens were purchased from retail stores in southern Ontario, Canada. Shipments maintained an average temperature of 3.8°C during transit to the testing laboratory. Each 25-g sample was spiked with 106 PFU of feline calicivirus (FCV) as a sample process control (4). Virus was concentrated by using an adsorption-elution-ultrafiltration filtration protocol (4). Recovery of FCV was quantified from an RNA standard curve. FCV process control recovery was 0.01% of the FCV was observed for the remaining 273 (83%) samples. Two samples from which FCV was not recovered were positive for norovirus (CE-V-09–0138) and rotavirus (CE-V-09–0129); they were considered true positive results. Of these 275 samples, 148 (54%) were positive for norovirus by real-time reverse transcription–PCR (RT-PCR) (5), and 1 (0.4%) was positive for rotavirus group A by RT-PCR (6). To confirm detection of norovirus RNA, we amplified a second norovirus target by RT-PCR of region C (5). Only 40 samples (15% of total) produced a band of the expected size for this second norovirus amplicon. Of these 40 amplicons, only 16 (6% of total) could be sequenced to confirm norovirus RNA. The rotavirus-positive sample was confirmed by sequencing. For some sample dates, multiple lots were positive; for others, no positive samples were identified (Figure). Multiple detections on the same date were not caused by cross-contamination; partial capsid sequencing showed different genetic types on dates when multiple samples were positive (Figure). Results were positive from 5 different brands, and no organic samples were confirmed positive for enteric virus contamination. Of the 16 norovirus strains confirmed, 13 belonged to genogroup I (GI) and 3 to genogroup II (GII) (Figure). All were strain types known to be human pathogens. The group A rotavirus was not subtyped; group A rotaviruses can be human or animal pathogens. Figure Phylogenetic analysis of the partial capsid sequence from genogroup I (A) and genogroup II (B) norovirus strains detected on leafy greens samples, Ontario, Canada, 2009, compared with the ViroNet Canada reference set for this region. Dates in parentheses ... Most noroviruses detected belonged to GI. Previous reports indicate that GI norovirus are more frequently identified in foodborne or waterborne outbreaks; GII.4 noroviruses are more common in large outbreaks spread person to person (7). Identification of GI norovirus is consistent with occasional contamination of produce or wash water. Disinfectants and sanitation agents are used in wash water at low concentrations, at which they have limited efficacy against norovirus (3). Washing and disinfecting produce before eating it can reduce the risk for infection by reducing the viral load by 10- to 1,000-fold (8). The median level of confirmed contamination in this study was ≈500 RNA copies for norovirus (range 1.4 copies to 9 × 106 copies). A limitation of our findings is the inability to determine the association between molecular detection results and infectious virus. No outbreaks were related to the sequences detected here. There is no routine cell culture system for the laboratory growth of human norovirus. Genomic RNA can persist after the virus has been inactivated (9). The new ViroNet Canada network, which went online in April 2010, will monitor strains detected in leafy greens and other food products together with strains from community outbreaks to identify outbreaks linked to contaminated foods. Our comprehensive surveillance study identified norovirus and rotavirus contamination of packaged leafy greens. We detected noroviruses on 6% and rotavirus on 0.4% of lots tested from retail markets in southern Ontario. Packages with confirmed positive samples were both imported into Canada and had been conventionally grown. Noroviruses have a low infectious dose (2), and detection of viral RNA is associated with human health risk in oysters, another commodity that is eaten raw (10). Our results suggest a possible risk for foodborne transmission of norovirus and rotavirus from packaged leafy greens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207