Detection of Salmonella from Chicken Rinses and Chicken Hot Dogs with the Automated BAX PCR System

Abstract

The BAX system with automated PCR detection was compared with standard cultural procedures for the detection of naturally occurring and spiked Salmonella in 183 chicken carcass rinses and 90 chicken hot dogs. The automated assay procedure consists of overnight growth (16 to 18 h) of the sample in buffered peptone broth at 35 degrees C, transfer of the sample to lysis tubes, incubation and lysis of the cells, transfer of the sample to PCR tubes, and placement of tubes into the cycler-detector, which runs automatically. The automated PCR detection assay takes about 4 h after 16 to 24 h of overnight preenrichment. The culture procedure consists of preerichment, enrichment, plating, and serological confirmation and takes about 72 h. Three trials involving 10 to 31 samples were carried out for each product. Some samples were spiked with Salmonella Typhimurium, Salmonella Heidelberg, Salmonella Montevideo, and Salmonella Enteritidis at 1 to 250 cells per ml of rinse or 1 to 250 cells per g of meat. For unspiked chicken rinses, Salmonella was detected in 2 of 61 samples with the automated system and in 1 of 61 samples with the culture method. Salmonella was recovered from 111 of 122 spiked samples with the automated PCR system and from 113 of 122 spiked samples with the culture method. For chicken hot dogs, Salmonella was detected in all 60 of the spiked samples with both the automated PCR and the culture procedures. For the 30 unspiked samples, Salmonella was recovered from 19 samples with the automated PCR system and from 10 samples with the culture method. The automated PCR system provided reliable Salmonella screening of chicken product samples within 24 h.

Application of BAX system, Tecra UniqueTMSalmonella test, and a conventional culture method for the detection of Salmonella in ready-to-eat and raw foods

“…(2001) also reported that the Tecra Unique TM test was comparable with the standard culture method in the detection of various serotypes of Salmonella in five different food types (milk powder, pepper, soy flour, milk chocolate, and dried egg) inoculated with one to five cells per 25‐g sample. Bailey and Cosby (2003) compared the detection of Salmonella serotypes from inoculated chicken rinses and chicken hotdogs (1–250 cells per ml or g) with the BAX system and the standard cultural procedures, and concluded that the PCR system provided reliable Salmonella screening. Lantz et al.…”

“…In contrast to the conventional standard culture method [e.g. Health Protection Agency (HPA) F13], which requires three working days to generate a negative result and five working days for a confirmed positive result, more rapid and specific methods, such as the commercial automated BAX‐PCR system can reduce the turnaround time (including the overnight pre‐enrichment step) to about 24 h (Bailey and Cosby 2003; HPA 2003). The BAX system simplifies and streamlines the laboratory detection of Salmonella in food samples by combining all the necessary reagents, such as primers, DNA polymerase, nucleotides, internal positive control, and fluorescent dye (SybrGreen), into a single lyophilized tablet in each PCR tube.…”

Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes isolated from retail chicken meat and giblets in Iran

“…Salmonella is one of the major foodborne pathogens worldwide [1,2] and is responsible for outbreaks of foodborne illness in humans via crosscontamination and consumption of undercooked meats [3,4]. It has been estimated that Salmonella has caused approximately one million cases of foodborne illness and 378 deaths per year in the United States [5].…”

Accuracy and Sensitivity of Commercial PCR-Based Methods for Detection of Salmonella enterica in Feed

“…The PCR-based methods evaluated in the present study (i.e., BAX System Q7 [DuPont Qualicon], the iQ-Check Salmonella II kit [Bio-Rad], and the TaqMan Salmonella enterica detection kit [Applied Biosystems]) have all been evaluated previously with food products but not feed ingredients, and, to our knowledge, no comparative studies have been conducted (8,12,17,20,28,29,31,34,37,43).…”