Back

Limit of detection of Salmonella ser. Enteritidis using culture-based versus culture-independent diagnostic approaches

Bradford, L. M.; Yao, L.; Anastasiadis, C.; Cooper, A. L.; Blais, B.; Deckert, A. E.; Reid-Smith, R. J.; Lau, C. H.-F.; Diarra, M. S.; Carrillo, C.; Wong, A.

2024-02-07 microbiology
10.1101/2024.02.05.578949 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In order to prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses, the presence of pathogens in the food chain is monitored by government agencies and food producers. The culture-based methods currently employed are sensitive but time-and labour-intensive, leading to increasing interest in exploring culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) for pathogen detection. However, sensitivity and reliability of these CIDTs relative to current approaches has not been well established. To address this issue, we conducted a comparison of the limit of detection (LOD50) for Salmonella between a culture-based method and three CIDT methods: qPCR (targeting invA and stn), metabarcode (16S) sequencing, and shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Samples of chicken feed and chicken caecal contents were spiked with Salmonella serovar Enteritidis and subjected to culture-and DNA-based detection methods. To explore the impact of non-selective enrichment on LOD50, all samples underwent both immediate DNA extraction and an overnight enrichment prior to gDNA extraction. In addition to this spike-in experiment, feed and caecal samples acquired from the field were tested with culturing, qPCR, and metabarcoding. In general, LOD50 was comparable between qPCR and shotgun sequencing methods. Overnight microbiological enrichment resulted in an improvement in LOD50 with up to a three log decrease, comparable to culture-based detection. However, Salmonella reads were detected in some unspiked feed samples, suggesting false-positive detection of Salmonella. Additionally, the LOD50 in feeds was three logs lower than in caecal contents, underscoring the impact of background microbiota on Salmonella detection using all methods. IMPORTANCEThe appeal of CIDTs is increased speed with lowered cost, as well as the potential to detect multiple pathogen species in a single analysis and to monitor other areas of concern such as antimicrobial resistance genes or virulence factors. Understanding the sensitivity of CIDTs relative to current approaches will help determine the feasibility of implementing these methods in pathogen surveillance programs.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Food Microbiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
2
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.9%
6
Poultry Science
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
9
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
10
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
11
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
12
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
13
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Journal of Applied Microbiology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
Animal Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
18
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
PLOS Water
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.9%
23
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Antibiotics
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
Aquaculture
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
27
Pathogens
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
30
Microbiology Resource Announcements
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%