Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples
The aim of the study was the comparative evaluation of an isothermal amplification and bioluminescence detection of DNA (IMBD) method and method ISO 6579:2002 for detection of Salmonella in retail meat products of unknown contamination status. A total of 200 meat samples were tested: 116 minced meat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of food protection 2013-04, Vol.76 (4), p.657-661 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 661 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 657 |
| container_title | Journal of food protection |
| container_volume | 76 |
| creator | Bonardi, Silvia Alpigiani, Irene Bacci, Cristina Brindani, Franco Pongolini, Stefano |
| description | The aim of the study was the comparative evaluation of an isothermal amplification and bioluminescence detection of DNA (IMBD) method and method ISO 6579:2002 for detection of Salmonella in retail meat products of unknown contamination status. A total of 200 meat samples were tested: 116 minced meat and meat preparations to be eaten cooked (52 chicken, 48 pork, and 16 beef samples) and 84 fresh meat samples (68 poultry and 16 pork). With one or both methods, 21 samples (10.5%) were positive for Salmonella enterica. Fifteen samples were positive with both methods (71.4% of all positive samples), two more samples (9.5%) were positive with the IMBD method only, and four samples (19.1%) were positive with the ISO method only. One ISO-positive sample was inhibited with the IMBD method. For the IMBD method, relative accuracy was 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6 to 98.9%), relative sensitivity was 78.9% (95% CI, 54.4 to 93.9%), and relative specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.7%). Time to negative results was shorter with the IMBD method (20 to 24 h). Also, positive results were available in 20 to 24 h but should be confirmed using other methods (presumptive-positive results). Rapidity of response of the IMBD method gave us the opportunity to test the presumptive-positive samples by the most-probable-number (MPN) method, which was not performed for samples that were positive only with the ISO method because of likely microbial changes during the long storage period (5 to 7 days) at refrigeration temperature. Salmonella MPN values in naturally contaminated meat were low, at |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-313 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1367484355</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2942839681</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-35f1d733377ac1b737088b30f63967d473ec70297a03f5acc471287f721831893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1uEzEUhS0EomngDRBYQpXYTPHfjD3sQkohqFBEqMTOcjw2dTVjB3sGibfiEblpQhGsvLjfOfceH4SeUHIqOK1fEt6wijD19fT9-aeKsopTfg_NaCtE1ZJW3kezO-QIHZdyQwhhLWseoiPGa1lT1s7Qr2UatiaHkiJOHpuIVyWN1y4PpseLYdsHH6wZA4xN7PDrkPppCNEV66J1-MyNzt5OQXz2cYE_uPE6dbfsan2Jm1q2rxjsxT5lDL7_KtamH1J0fW-wi6PLsAqvXU4_TC44RPzZjSb0YGpGYOEaVx6hB970xT0-vHN0df7my_JddXH5drVcXFRWNGqseO1pJznnUhpLN5JLotSGE9_wtpGdkNxZCd8hDeG-NtYKSZmSXjKqOFUtn6MXe99tTt8nV0Y9BAgNp0aXpqIpb6RQgtc1oM__Q2_SlCNcBxRrmBKkFUCJPWVzKiU7r7c5DCb_1JToXaN6V5fe1aWhUU2ZhkZB9vRgPm0G192J_lQIwMkBMMWa3mcTbSh_OQlpBISao2d7zpukzTeoXF-tGaGCEMqJqBX_DQfvsK0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1326284094</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bonardi, Silvia ; Alpigiani, Irene ; Bacci, Cristina ; Brindani, Franco ; Pongolini, Stefano</creator><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Silvia ; Alpigiani, Irene ; Bacci, Cristina ; Brindani, Franco ; Pongolini, Stefano</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the study was the comparative evaluation of an isothermal amplification and bioluminescence detection of DNA (IMBD) method and method ISO 6579:2002 for detection of Salmonella in retail meat products of unknown contamination status. A total of 200 meat samples were tested: 116 minced meat and meat preparations to be eaten cooked (52 chicken, 48 pork, and 16 beef samples) and 84 fresh meat samples (68 poultry and 16 pork). With one or both methods, 21 samples (10.5%) were positive for Salmonella enterica. Fifteen samples were positive with both methods (71.4% of all positive samples), two more samples (9.5%) were positive with the IMBD method only, and four samples (19.1%) were positive with the ISO method only. One ISO-positive sample was inhibited with the IMBD method. For the IMBD method, relative accuracy was 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6 to 98.9%), relative sensitivity was 78.9% (95% CI, 54.4 to 93.9%), and relative specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.7%). Time to negative results was shorter with the IMBD method (20 to 24 h). Also, positive results were available in 20 to 24 h but should be confirmed using other methods (presumptive-positive results). Rapidity of response of the IMBD method gave us the opportunity to test the presumptive-positive samples by the most-probable-number (MPN) method, which was not performed for samples that were positive only with the ISO method because of likely microbial changes during the long storage period (5 to 7 days) at refrigeration temperature. Salmonella MPN values in naturally contaminated meat were low, at <0.3 to 2.1 MPN/g.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-028X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-9097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-313</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23575129</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JFPRDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Des Moines, IA: International Association for Food Protection</publisher><subject>Animals ; Beef ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bioluminescence ; Cattle ; Chickens ; Comparative analysis ; confidence interval ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; Disease control ; DNA ; DNA, Bacterial - analysis ; Food ; Food contamination ; Food Contamination - analysis ; Food industries ; Food Microbiology ; Food safety ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gene Amplification ; General aspects ; Humans ; Luminescent Measurements - methods ; Meat ; Meat products ; Meat Products - microbiology ; Methods ; Methods of analysis, processing and quality control, regulation, standards ; minced meat ; Pork ; Poultry ; raw meat ; Refrigeration ; Salmonella ; Salmonella enterica ; Salmonella enterica - genetics ; Salmonella enterica - isolation & purification ; serotypes ; storage time ; Supermarkets ; Swine ; Temperature ; Zoonoses</subject><ispartof>Journal of food protection, 2013-04, Vol.76 (4), p.657-661</ispartof><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services Apr 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-35f1d733377ac1b737088b30f63967d473ec70297a03f5acc471287f721831893</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-35f1d733377ac1b737088b30f63967d473ec70297a03f5acc471287f721831893</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1326284094?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,64385,64387,64389,72341</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27189418$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575129$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alpigiani, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacci, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brindani, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pongolini, Stefano</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples</title><title>Journal of food protection</title><addtitle>J Food Prot</addtitle><description>The aim of the study was the comparative evaluation of an isothermal amplification and bioluminescence detection of DNA (IMBD) method and method ISO 6579:2002 for detection of Salmonella in retail meat products of unknown contamination status. A total of 200 meat samples were tested: 116 minced meat and meat preparations to be eaten cooked (52 chicken, 48 pork, and 16 beef samples) and 84 fresh meat samples (68 poultry and 16 pork). With one or both methods, 21 samples (10.5%) were positive for Salmonella enterica. Fifteen samples were positive with both methods (71.4% of all positive samples), two more samples (9.5%) were positive with the IMBD method only, and four samples (19.1%) were positive with the ISO method only. One ISO-positive sample was inhibited with the IMBD method. For the IMBD method, relative accuracy was 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6 to 98.9%), relative sensitivity was 78.9% (95% CI, 54.4 to 93.9%), and relative specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.7%). Time to negative results was shorter with the IMBD method (20 to 24 h). Also, positive results were available in 20 to 24 h but should be confirmed using other methods (presumptive-positive results). Rapidity of response of the IMBD method gave us the opportunity to test the presumptive-positive samples by the most-probable-number (MPN) method, which was not performed for samples that were positive only with the ISO method because of likely microbial changes during the long storage period (5 to 7 days) at refrigeration temperature. Salmonella MPN values in naturally contaminated meat were low, at <0.3 to 2.1 MPN/g.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bioluminescence</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>confidence interval</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - analysis</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food contamination</subject><subject>Food Contamination - analysis</subject><subject>Food industries</subject><subject>Food Microbiology</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gene Amplification</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Luminescent Measurements - methods</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Meat products</subject><subject>Meat Products - microbiology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Methods of analysis, processing and quality control, regulation, standards</subject><subject>minced meat</subject><subject>Pork</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>raw meat</subject><subject>Refrigeration</subject><subject>Salmonella</subject><subject>Salmonella enterica</subject><subject>Salmonella enterica - genetics</subject><subject>Salmonella enterica - isolation & purification</subject><subject>serotypes</subject><subject>storage time</subject><subject>Supermarkets</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Temperature</subject><subject>Zoonoses</subject><issn>0362-028X</issn><issn>1944-9097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1uEzEUhS0EomngDRBYQpXYTPHfjD3sQkohqFBEqMTOcjw2dTVjB3sGibfiEblpQhGsvLjfOfceH4SeUHIqOK1fEt6wijD19fT9-aeKsopTfg_NaCtE1ZJW3kezO-QIHZdyQwhhLWseoiPGa1lT1s7Qr2UatiaHkiJOHpuIVyWN1y4PpseLYdsHH6wZA4xN7PDrkPppCNEV66J1-MyNzt5OQXz2cYE_uPE6dbfsan2Jm1q2rxjsxT5lDL7_KtamH1J0fW-wi6PLsAqvXU4_TC44RPzZjSb0YGpGYOEaVx6hB970xT0-vHN0df7my_JddXH5drVcXFRWNGqseO1pJznnUhpLN5JLotSGE9_wtpGdkNxZCd8hDeG-NtYKSZmSXjKqOFUtn6MXe99tTt8nV0Y9BAgNp0aXpqIpb6RQgtc1oM__Q2_SlCNcBxRrmBKkFUCJPWVzKiU7r7c5DCb_1JToXaN6V5fe1aWhUU2ZhkZB9vRgPm0G192J_lQIwMkBMMWa3mcTbSh_OQlpBISao2d7zpukzTeoXF-tGaGCEMqJqBX_DQfvsK0</recordid><startdate>20130401</startdate><enddate>20130401</enddate><creator>Bonardi, Silvia</creator><creator>Alpigiani, Irene</creator><creator>Bacci, Cristina</creator><creator>Brindani, Franco</creator><creator>Pongolini, Stefano</creator><general>International Association for Food Protection</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130401</creationdate><title>Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples</title><author>Bonardi, Silvia ; Alpigiani, Irene ; Bacci, Cristina ; Brindani, Franco ; Pongolini, Stefano</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-35f1d733377ac1b737088b30f63967d473ec70297a03f5acc471287f721831893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bioluminescence</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>confidence interval</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - analysis</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food contamination</topic><topic>Food Contamination - analysis</topic><topic>Food industries</topic><topic>Food Microbiology</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gene Amplification</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Luminescent Measurements - methods</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Meat products</topic><topic>Meat Products - microbiology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Methods of analysis, processing and quality control, regulation, standards</topic><topic>minced meat</topic><topic>Pork</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>raw meat</topic><topic>Refrigeration</topic><topic>Salmonella</topic><topic>Salmonella enterica</topic><topic>Salmonella enterica - genetics</topic><topic>Salmonella enterica - isolation & purification</topic><topic>serotypes</topic><topic>storage time</topic><topic>Supermarkets</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Temperature</topic><topic>Zoonoses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alpigiani, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacci, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brindani, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pongolini, Stefano</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Journal of food protection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bonardi, Silvia</au><au>Alpigiani, Irene</au><au>Bacci, Cristina</au><au>Brindani, Franco</au><au>Pongolini, Stefano</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food protection</jtitle><addtitle>J Food Prot</addtitle><date>2013-04-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>657</spage><epage>661</epage><pages>657-661</pages><issn>0362-028X</issn><eissn>1944-9097</eissn><coden>JFPRDR</coden><abstract>The aim of the study was the comparative evaluation of an isothermal amplification and bioluminescence detection of DNA (IMBD) method and method ISO 6579:2002 for detection of Salmonella in retail meat products of unknown contamination status. A total of 200 meat samples were tested: 116 minced meat and meat preparations to be eaten cooked (52 chicken, 48 pork, and 16 beef samples) and 84 fresh meat samples (68 poultry and 16 pork). With one or both methods, 21 samples (10.5%) were positive for Salmonella enterica. Fifteen samples were positive with both methods (71.4% of all positive samples), two more samples (9.5%) were positive with the IMBD method only, and four samples (19.1%) were positive with the ISO method only. One ISO-positive sample was inhibited with the IMBD method. For the IMBD method, relative accuracy was 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6 to 98.9%), relative sensitivity was 78.9% (95% CI, 54.4 to 93.9%), and relative specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.7%). Time to negative results was shorter with the IMBD method (20 to 24 h). Also, positive results were available in 20 to 24 h but should be confirmed using other methods (presumptive-positive results). Rapidity of response of the IMBD method gave us the opportunity to test the presumptive-positive samples by the most-probable-number (MPN) method, which was not performed for samples that were positive only with the ISO method because of likely microbial changes during the long storage period (5 to 7 days) at refrigeration temperature. Salmonella MPN values in naturally contaminated meat were low, at <0.3 to 2.1 MPN/g.</abstract><cop>Des Moines, IA</cop><pub>International Association for Food Protection</pub><pmid>23575129</pmid><doi>10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-313</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0362-028X |
| ispartof | Journal of food protection, 2013-04, Vol.76 (4), p.657-661 |
| issn | 0362-028X 1944-9097 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1367484355 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Animals Beef Biological and medical sciences Bioluminescence Cattle Chickens Comparative analysis confidence interval Deoxyribonucleic acid Disease control DNA DNA, Bacterial - analysis Food Food contamination Food Contamination - analysis Food industries Food Microbiology Food safety Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Gene Amplification General aspects Humans Luminescent Measurements - methods Meat Meat products Meat Products - microbiology Methods Methods of analysis, processing and quality control, regulation, standards minced meat Pork Poultry raw meat Refrigeration Salmonella Salmonella enterica Salmonella enterica - genetics Salmonella enterica - isolation & purification serotypes storage time Supermarkets Swine Temperature Zoonoses |
| title | Comparison of an Isothermal Amplification and Bioluminescence Detection of DNA Method and ISO 6579:2002 for the Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovars in Retail Meat Samples |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T20%3A56%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20an%20Isothermal%20Amplification%20and%20Bioluminescence%20Detection%20of%20DNA%20Method%20and%20ISO%206579:2002%20for%20the%20Detection%20of%20Salmonella%20enterica%20Serovars%20in%20Retail%20Meat%20Samples&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20protection&rft.au=Bonardi,%20Silvia&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=657&rft.epage=661&rft.pages=657-661&rft.issn=0362-028X&rft.eissn=1944-9097&rft.coden=JFPRDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-313&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2942839681%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1326284094&rft_id=info:pmid/23575129&rfr_iscdi=true |