4.7 Review

FISHing for bacteria in food - A promising tool for the reliable detection of pathogenic bacteria?

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue -, Pages 395-407

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.09.002

Keywords

Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Foodborne illnesses; Food safety; Ribosomal RNA; Rapid detection methods

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  2. [FKZ 13N12697]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Foodborne pathogens cause millions of infections every year and are responsible for considerable economic losses worldwide. The current gold standard for the detection of bacterial pathogens in food is still the conventional cultivation following standardized and generally accepted protocols. However, these methods are time-consuming and do not provide fast information about food contaminations and thus are limited in their ability to protect consumers in time from potential microbial hazards. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) represents a rapid and highly specific technique for whole-cell detection. This review aims to summarize the current data on FISH-testing for the detection of pathogenic bacteria in different food matrices and to evaluate its suitability for the implementation in routine testing. In this context, the use of FISH in different matrices and their pretreatment will be presented, the sensitivity and specificity of FISH tests will be considered and the need for automation shall be discussed as well as the use of technological improvements to overcome current hurdles for a broad application in monitoring food safety. In addition, the overall economical feasibility will be assessed in a rough calculation of costs, and strengths and weaknesses of FISH are considered in comparison with traditional and wellestablished detection methods. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available