Development of a sensitive and specific qPCR assay in conjunction with propidium monoazide for enhanced detection of live Salmonella spp. in food

BMC Microbiology

Jin-Qiang Chen¹  Baoguang Li¹ 

[1] Division of Molecular Biology, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, MD, 20708, USA

关键词: invA gene;    Live cells;    Propidium monoazide;    qPCR;    Salmonella;   

Others  :  1142599
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2180-13-273

 received in 2013-05-24, accepted in 2013-11-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although a variety of methodologies are available for detection of Salmonella, sensitive, specific, and efficient methods are urgently needed for differentiation of live Salmonella cells from dead cells in food and environmental samples. Propidium monoazide (PMA) can preferentially penetrate the compromised membranes of dead cells and inhibit their DNA amplification, however, such inhibition has been reported to be incomplete by some studies. In the present study, we report an efficient qPCR assay targeting a conserved region of the invA gene of Salmonella in conjunction with PMA treatment for detection of DNA from live Salmonella cells in food samples.

Results

We investigated the relationship between amplicon length and inhibitory effect of PMA treatment to prevent DNA amplification from dead cells while allowing for DNA amplification from live cells, and found that the two factors are well correlated with each other. An amplicon that is 130 bp in length was determined to be optimal for PMA treatment and was selected for further PMA-qPCR assay development. A PMA-qPCR assay was established by utilizing this amplicon and adopting a modified PMA-treatment procedure. The PMA-qPCR assay provided excellent inhibition of DNA amplification from dead cells (a 17-C_T-value, or 128,000-fold reduction) while only a slight DNA amplification difference (0.5 C_T value) was noted between the PMA-treated and untreated live cells. This assay has been validated through stringent inclusivity and exclusivity studies using a large number of (n = 167) Salmonella, including all strains of SARA and SARB collections, and non-Salmonella strains (n = 36). This PMA-qPCR assay is capable of detecting live Salmonella cells in live/dead cell mixtures, or 30 CFU/g live Salmonella cells from enriched spiked spinach samples as early as 4 h.

Conclusions

A 130-bp amplicon in invA gene was demonstrated to be optimal for PMA treatment for selective detection of live Salmonella cells by PCR. This PMA-qPCR assay provides a sensitive, specific, and efficient method for detecting live Salmonella cells in foods and environmental samples and may have an impact on the accurate microbiological monitoring of Salmonella in foods and environment samples.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Li and Chen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Alali WQ, Thakur S, Berghaus RD, Martin MP, Gebreyes WA: Prevalence and distribution of Salmonella in organic and conventional broiler poultry farms. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010, 7:1363-1371.
• [2]Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Hoekstra RM: Foodborne illness acquired in the United States–unspecified agents. Emerg Infect Dis 2011, 17:16-22.
• [3]Voetsch AC, Van Gilder TJ, Angulo FJ, Farley MM, Shallow S, Marcus R, Cieslak PR, Deneen VC, Tauxe RV: FoodNet estimate of the burden of illness caused by nontyphoidal Salmonella infections in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2004, 38(Suppl 3):S127-S134.
• [4]CDC: Preliminary FoodNet data on the incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food - 10 states, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010, 59:418-422.
• [5]Dechet AM, Scallan E, Gensheimer K, Hoekstra R, Gunderman-King J, Lockett J, Wrigley D, Chege W, Sobel J: Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium Definitive Type 104 infection linked to commercial ground beef, northeastern United States, 2003–2004. Clin Infect Dis 2006, 42:747-752.
• [6]Jordan E, Egan J, Dullea C, Ward J, McGillicuddy K, Murray G, Murphy A, Bradshaw B, Leonard N, Rafter P, McDowell S: Salmonella surveillance in raw and cooked meat and meat products in the Republic of Ireland from 2002 to 2004. Int J Food Microbiol 2006, 112:66-70.
• [7]Meyer C, Thiel S, Ullrich U, Stolle A: Salmonella in raw meat and by-products from pork and beef. J Food Prot 2010, 73:1780-1784.
• [8]Berger CN, Sodha SV, Shaw RK, Griffin PM, Pink D, Hand P, Frankel G: Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of human pathogens. Environ Microbiol 2010, 12:2385-2397.
• [9]Miller ND, Draughon FA, D’Souza DH: Real-time reverse-transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction for Salmonella enterica detection from jalapeno and serrano peppers. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010, 7:367-373.
• [10]Tietjen M, Fung DY: Salmonellae and food safety. Crit Rev Microbiol 1995, 21:53-83.
• [11]Lungu B, Waltman WD, Berghaus RD, Hofacre CL: Comparison of a real-time PCR method with a culture method for the detection of Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis in naturally contaminated environmental samples from integrated poultry houses. J Food Prot 2012, 75:743-747.
• [12]Mansfield LP, Forsythe SJ: The detection of Salmonella using a combined immunomagnetic separation and ELISA end-detection procedure. Lett Appl Microbiol 2000, 31:279-283.
• [13]Eriksson E, Aspan A: Comparison of culture, ELISA and PCR techniques for Salmonella detection in faecal samples for cattle, pig and poultry. BMC Vet Res 2007, 3:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Malorny B, Lofstrom C, Wagner M, Kramer N, Hoorfar J: Enumeration of Salmonella bacteria in food and feed samples by real-time PCR for quantitative microbial risk assessment. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008, 74:1299-1304.
• [15]Wolffs PF, Glencross K, Thibaudeau R, Griffiths MW: Direct quantitation and detection of Salmonellae in biological samples without enrichment, using two-step filtration and real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72:3896-3900.
• [16]Nocker A, Camper AK: Novel approaches toward preferential detection of viable cells using nucleic acid amplification techniques. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2009, 291:137-142.
• [17]Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, McFall ME, King RK, Renter DG: A real-time PCR assay for the detection of Salmonella in a wide variety of food and food-animal matricest. J Food Prot 2007, 70:1080-1087.
• [18]Techathuvanan C, Draughon FA, D’Souza DH: Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR for the rapid and sensitive detection of Salmonella Typhimurium from pork. J Food Prot 2010, 73:507-514.
• [19]Nocker A, Cheung CY, Camper AK: Comparison of propidium monoazide with ethidium monoazide for differentiation of live vs. dead bacteria by selective removal of DNA from dead cells. J Microbiol Methods 2006, 67:310-320.
• [20]Nocker A, Sossa KE, Camper AK: Molecular monitoring of disinfection efficacy using propidium monoazide in combination with quantitative PCR. J Microbiol Methods 2007, 70:252-260.
• [21]Li B, Chen JQ: Real-time PCR methodology for selective detection of viable Escherichia coli O157:H7 cells by targeting Z3276 as a genetic marker. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012, 78:5297-5304.
• [22]Contreras PJ, Urrutia H, Sossa K, Nocker A: Effect of PCR amplicon length on suppressing signals from membrane-compromised cells by propidium monoazide treatment. J Microbiol Methods 2011, 87:89-95.
• [23]Luo JF, Lin WT, Guo Y: Method to detect only viable cells in microbial ecology. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2010, 86:377-384.
• [24]Schnetzinger F, Pan Y, Nocker A: Use of propidium monoazide and increased amplicon length reduce false-positive signals in quantitative PCR for bioburden analysis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2013, 97:2153-2162.
• [25]Soejima T, Schlitt-Dittrich F, Yoshida S: Rapid detection of viable bacteria by nested polymerase chain reaction via long DNA amplification after ethidium monoazide treatment. Anal Biochem 2011, 418:286-294.
• [26]Galan JE, Ginocchio C, Costeas P: Molecular and functional characterization of the Salmonella invasion gene invA: homology of InvA to members of a new protein family. J Bacteriol 1992, 174:4338-4349.
• [27]Malorny B, Hoorfar J, Bunge C, Helmuth R: Multicenter validation of the analytical accuracy of Salmonella PCR: towards an international standard. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69:290-296.
• [28]Rahn K, De Grandis SA, Clarke RC, McEwen SA, Galan JE, Ginocchio C, Curtiss R III, Gyles CL: Amplification of an invA gene sequence of Salmonella Typhimurium by polymerase chain reaction as a specific method of detection of Salmonella. Mol Cell Probes 1992, 6:271-279.
• [29]Mainar-Jaime RC, Andres S, Vico JP, San RB, Garrido V, Grillo MJ: Sensitivity of the ISO 6579:2002/Amd 1:2007 standard method for detection of Salmonella spp. on mesenteric lymph nodes from slaughter pigs. J Clin Microbiol 2013, 51:89-94.
• [30]Arnold T, Scholz HC, Marg H, Rosler U, Hensel A: Impact of invA-PCR and culture detection methods on occurrence and survival of Salmonella in the flesh, internal organs and lymphoid tissues of experimentally infected pigs. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health 2004, 51:459-463.
• [31]Banihashemi A, Van Dyke MI, Huck PM: Long-amplicon propidium monoazide-PCR enumeration assay to detect viable Campylobacter and Salmonella. J Appl Microbiol 2012, 113:863-873.
• [32]Chen S, Wang F, Beaulieu JC, Stein RE, Ge B: Rapid detection of viable Salmonellae in produce by coupling propidium monoazide with loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011, 77:4008-4016.
• [33]Hoorfar J, Ahrens P, Radstrom P: Automated 5′ nuclease PCR assay for identification of Salmonella enterica. J Clin Microbiol 2000, 38:3429-3435.
• [34]Liang N, Dong J, Luo L, Li Y: Detection of viable Salmonella in lettuce by propidium monoazide real-time PCR. J Food Sci 2011, 76:M234-M237.
• [35]Braun SD, Methner U: Comparison of DNA isolation methods and detection of Salmonella spp. from animal faeces and dust using invA real-time PCR. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2011, 124:177-185.
• [36]Wilkins W, Waldner C, Rajic A, McFall M, Muckle A, Mainar-Jaime RC: Comparison of bacterial culture and real-time PCR for the detection of Salmonella in grow–finish pigs in western Canada using a Bayesian approach. Zoonoses Public Health 2010, 57(Suppl 1):115-120.
• [37]Nkuipou-Kenfack E, Engel H, Fakih S, Nocker A: Improving efficiency of viability-PCR for selective detection of live cells. J Microbiol Methods 2013, 93:20-24.
• [38]Nocker A, Mazza A, Masson L, Camper AK, Brousseau R: Selective detection of live bacteria combining propidium monoazide sample treatment with microarray technology. J Microbiol Methods 2009, 76:253-261.
• [39]Soejima T, Iida K, Qin T, Taniai H, Seki M, Yoshida S: Method to detect only live bacteria during PCR amplification. J Clin Microbiol 2008, 46:2305-2313.
• [40]Sivapalasingam S, Friedman CR, Cohen L, Tauxe RV: Fresh produce: a growing cause of outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, 1973 through 1997. J Food Prot 2004, 67:2342-2353.
• [41]Li B, et al: Detection and Identification of Salmonella by qPCR and Microarray from Environmental Water Sources [abstract]. Washington, DC: ASM; 2013:149.
• [42]Beltran P, Plock SA, Smith NH, Whittam TS, Old DC, Selander RK: Reference collection of strains of the Salmonella typhimurium complex from natural populations. J Gen Microbiol 1991, 137:601-606.
• [43]Boyd EF, Wang FS, Beltran P, Plock SA, Nelson K, Selander RK: Salmonella reference collection B (SARB): strains of 37 serovars of subspecies I. J Gen Microbiol 1993, 139(Pt 6):1125-1132.
• [44]Fricker M, Messelhausser U, Busch U, Scherer S, Ehling-Schulz M: Diagnostic real-time PCR assays for the detection of emetic Bacillus cereus strains in foods and recent food-borne outbreaks. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007, 73:1892-1898.
• [45]FDA: BAM for Salmonella . Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International; 2011.