MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376127345 · doi:10.1016/j.jfp.2023.100104

Substituting Allose as the Primary Carbon Source During Enrichment Helps Improve Detection and Isolation of Lineage II Listeria monocytogenes From Food

2023· article· en· W4376127345 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacqueline Upham, Mikaela Eisebraun, Alex Fortuna, Gustavo V. Mallo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Protection · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesListeriaFood scienceIsolation (microbiology)BiologySugarChemistryMicrobiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing of foods for low levels of the human pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), involves a selective enrichment procedure. A nonpathogenic species of Listeria, L. innocua (Li), is often present in foods and food-manufacturing environments and is an interference organism for Lm detection due to competition during enrichment. The present study investigated whether a novel enrichment strategy incorporating the sugar allose into the secondary enrichment broth (allose method) could improve the detection of Lm from foods when Li is present. First, Canadian food isolates of Listeria spp. were tested to confirm recent reports that lineage II Lm (LII-Lm), but not Li, could metabolize allose. All LII-Lm isolates (n = 81), but not Li (n = 36), possessed the allose genes lmo0734-lmo0739, and could efficiently metabolize allose. Next, smoked salmon was contaminated with mixtures of LII-Lm and Li and tested using different enrichment procedures to compare the ability to recover Lm. Allose broth was more effective than Fraser Broth, with Lm detected in 87% (74 of 85) compared to 59% (50 of 85) of the samples (P < 0.05), following a common preenrichment. When evaluated against a current Health Canada method (MFLP-28), the allose method was more effective, with LII-Lm detected in 88% (57 of 65) compared to 69% (45 of 65) of the samples (P < 0.05). The allose method also remarkably increased the ratio of LII-Lm to Li postenrichment, which improved the ease of obtaining isolated Lm colonies for confirmation tests. Allose may therefore provide a tool for use when the presence of background flora interferes with Lm detection. As this tool is specifically applicable to a subset of Lm, the use of this method modification may provide a working example of tailoring methodology to target the known subtype of the pathogen of interest in an outbreak investigation, or for regular monitoring activities in conjunction with a PCR screen for allose genes on preenrichment cultures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ProtectionSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207