4.4 Article

Comparison of methods for the microbiological identification and profiling of Cronobacter species from ingredients used in the preparation of infant formula

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR PROBES
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 60-64

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcp.2012.10.003

关键词

Cronobacter; Enterobacter sakazakii; PFGE; fusA; MLST; 16S rDNA sequencing

资金

  1. Ankara University
  2. TUBITAK-BIDEB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cronobacter spp. (formerly Enterobacter sakazakii) can be isolated from a wide range of foods and environments, and its association with neonatal infections has drawn considerable attention from regulatory authorities. The principle route of neonatal infection has been identified as the ingestion of contaminated infant formula. A number of methods have been developed to identify Cronobacter spp., however these were before the most recent (2012) taxonomic revision of the genus into seven species. In this study, phenotyping, protein profiling and molecular methods were used to identify Cronobacter strains which had been recently isolated from ingredients used in the preparation of infant formula. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis revealed that different Cronobacter strains had been recovered from the same food products. All isolates were identified as Cronobacter sakazakii according to four genus specific PCR-probes and protein profiling using MALDI-TOF analysis. However, 16S rDNA sequence analyses and fusA allele sequencing gave more accurate identification: four strains were C. sakazakii, one strain was Cronobacter malonaticus and the remaining strain was Cronobacter universalis. Multilocus sequence typing showed the strains were different sequence types. These results demonstrate the presence of different Cronobacter species in food ingredients used in the preparation of infant formula, and also the need for molecular identification and profiling methods to be revised according to taxonomic revisions. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据