The present work compared 2 culture methods and the combinations of pre-enrichment and enrichment culture methods with PCR assays [buffered peptone water-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR or modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV)-PCR] for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strain detection using artificially contaminated poultry feces. The specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in both culture methods. Specificity and positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive values were higher for motile than nonmotile Salmonella strains in culture methods. Only Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum was detected by the MSRV method with low accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The detection level of motile strains was 2 ×10(0) to 22 × 10(2) cfu per 25 g for these methods, whereas it was 6.9 × 10(2) cfu per 25 g in culture methods for Salmonella Gallinarum. Extending the incubation time of the enrichment medium to 6 d in the TT method did not improve the isolation rates. In general, all selective plating media did not show any statistical differences in the parameters of performance studied. On the other hand, accuracy and sensitivity values were higher in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods than in the buffered peptone water-PCR method. Specificity and positive predictive values were equal to one in most of the cases. In terms of detection limits, motile Salmonella strains were recovered from 5 × 10(0) cfu per 25 g in MSRV-PCR and tetrathionate-PCR methods, whereas the detection limit was better for nonmotile Salmonella in MSRV-PCR methods than in the tetrathionate-PCR method. Kappa coefficients showed that there was a very good agreement between tetrathionate and MSRV methods for motile Salmonella strains, whereas these methods did not show any concordance for nonmotile Salmonella strains. When buffered peptone water-PCR was compared with both tetrathionate-PCR and MSRV-PCR, agreement was poor for motile Salmonella strains and slight to fair for nonmotile Salmonella strains. The difference in isolation rate obtained with the methods used for motile and nonmotile Salmonella strains must be taken into account when a poultry fecal sample is considered negative for the presence of Salmonella.
Bacillus cereus is an endospore-forming, Gram-positive bacterium able to cause foodborne diseases. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are known for their ability to synthesize organic acids and bacteriocins, but the potential of these compounds against B. cereus has been scarcely documented in food models. The present study has examined the effect of the metabolites produced by Lactobacillus johnsonii CRL1647 and Enterococcus faecium SM21 on the viability of select B. cereus strains. Furthermore, the effect of E. faecium SM21 metabolites against B. cereus strains has also been investigated on a rice food model. L. johnsonii CRL1647 produced 128 mmol/L of lactic acid, 38 mmol/L of acetic acid and 0.3 mmol/L of phenyl-lactic acid. These organic acids reduced the number of vegetative cells and spores of the B. cereus strains tested. However, the antagonistic effect disappeared at pH 6.5. On the other hand, E. faecium SM21 produced only lactic and acetic acid (24.5 and 12.2 mmol/L, respectively) and was able to inhibit both vegetative cells and spores of the B. cereus strains, at a final fermentation pH of 5.0 and at pH 6.5. This would indicate the action of other metabolites, different from organic acids, present in the cell-free supernatant. On cooked rice grains, the E. faecium SM21 bacteriocin(s) were tested against two B. cereus strains. Both of them were significantly affected within the first 4 h of contact; whereas B. cereus BAC1 cells recovered after 24 h, the effect on B. cereus 1 remained up to the end of the assay. The LAB studied may thus be considered to define future strategies for biological control of B. cereus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.