No abstract

Salmonella is recognized as one of the most important foodborne bacteria and has wide health and socioeconomic impacts worldwide. Fresh pork meat is one of the main sources of Salmonella, and efficient and fast methods for detection are therefore necessary. Current methods for Salmonella detection in fresh meat usually include Ͼ16 h of culture enrichment, in a few cases Ͻ12 h, thus requiring at least two working shifts. Here, we report a rapid (Ͻ5 h) and high-throughput method for screening of Salmonella in samples from fresh pork meat, consisting of a 3-h enrichment in standard buffered peptone water and a real-time PCR-compatible sample preparation method based on filtration, centrifugation, and enzymatic digestion, followed by fast-cycling real-time PCR detection. The method was validated in an unpaired comparative study against the Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL) reference culture method 187. Pork meat samples (n ϭ 140) were either artificially contaminated with Salmonella at 0, 1 to 10, or 10 to 100 CFU/25 g of meat or naturally contaminated. Cohen's kappa for the degree of agreement between the rapid method and the reference was 0.64, and the relative accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for the rapid method were 81.4, 95.1, and 97.9%, respectively. The 50% limit of detections (LOD 50 s) were 8.8 CFU/25 g for the rapid method and 7.7 CFU/25 g for the reference method. Implementation of this method will enable faster release of Salmonella low-risk meat, providing savings for meat producers, and it will help contribute to improved food safety.IMPORTANCE While the cost of analysis and hands-on time of the presented rapid method were comparable to those of reference culture methods, the fast product release by this method can provide the meat industry with a competitive advantage. Not only will the abattoirs save costs for work hours and cold storage, but consumers and retailers will also benefit from fresher meat with a longer shelf life. Furthermore, the presented sample preparation might be adjusted for application in the detection of other pathogenic bacteria in different sample types.KEYWORDS Salmonella, food safety, foodborne pathogens, fresh meat, rapid tests, real-time PCR, sample preparation, validation S almonella is a global foodborne pathogen responsible for approximately 30% of foodborne outbreaks in the United States and 23% in the European Union (1, 2). Pork meat remains an important source of human salmonellosis, which is why the absence of Salmonella is confirmed at critical control points at abattoirs (2). However, the reference culture-based methods require several days to obtain a test result (3, 4), thereby postponing the market release of fresh meat.

In microbial food safety, molecular methods such as quantitative PCR (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) of bacterial isolates can potentially be replaced by diagnostic shotgun metagenomics. However, the methods for pre-analytical sample preparation are often optimized for qPCR, and do not necessarily perform equally well for qPCR and sequencing. The present study investigates, through screening of methods, whether qPCR can be used as an indicator for the optimization of sample preparation for NGS-based shotgun metagenomics with a diagnostic focus. This was used on human fecal samples spiked with 103 or 106 colony-forming units (CFU)/g Campylobacter jejuni, as well as porcine fecal samples spiked with 103 or 106 CFU/g Salmonella typhimurium. DNA was extracted from the samples using variations of two widely used kits. The following quality parameters were measured: DNA concentration, qPCR, DNA fragmentation during library preparation, amount of DNA available for sequencing, amount of sequencing data, distribution of data between samples in a batch, and data insert size; none showed any correlation with the target ratio of the spiking organism detected in sequencing data. Surprisingly, diagnostic metagenomics can have better detection sensitivity than qPCR for samples spiked with 103 CFU/g C. jejuni. The study also showed that qPCR and sequencing results may be different due to inhibition in one of the methods. In conclusion, qPCR cannot uncritically be used as an indicator for the optimization of sample preparation for diagnostic metagenomics.

This work exemplifies a cost-effective strategy for optimizing real-time PCR-based assays. However, a DNA polymerase suitable for one assay and sample type is not necessarily optimal for other assays or sample types.