Design and evaluation of a streamlined enrichment method for faster co-detection of enteric bacterial pathogens in natural soils and environmental samples
Madson, E.; Kapanka, A.; Kwamutakha, S.; Ouma, C.; Sinik, M.; Okoth, B.; Agira, J.; Amondi, C.; Simiyu, S.; Gutema, F.; Sewell, D.; Baker, K.
Show abstract
This study developed a streamlined, sensitive and rapid method for co-detection of low concentrations of Salmonella enterica, Shigella flexneri, Listeria monocytogenes, and pathogenic Escherichia coli from soil. First, autoclaved soil from Iowa with serial dilutions of bacteria to confirm individual species recovery rates on selective agar by qPCR under varying primary enrichment times was used. All pathogens were detected by qPCR of colonies recovered from replicate sterile soils spiked with 10^1 or greater bacteria within 5 hours of enrichment. Shiga toxin expressing E. coli (STEC) and L. monocytogenes were consistently co-recovered in autoclaved and natural soil, pathogen spiking concentration, and secondary enrichment time. S.enterica was consistently recovered at autoclaved and natural concentrations, while S. flexneri detection rates fluctuated. Twenty-three soil samples from Kenyan neighborhoods, with prior evidence of contamination, was compared to qPCR detection at each protocol stage: processing, primary enrichment, secondary enrichment, and selective colony isolation. Detection rates substantially increased for S. enterica, STEC and other pathogenic E. coli after enrichment, with optimal detection rates occurring after secondary enrichment. Testing colonies from selective agar resulted in high false negative rates, possibly reflecting competition from native soil microbiota that was absent in spiked sterile soil experiment. Evaluation of the method with other environmental sample types yielded consistent detection patterns. Evidence suggests a protocol including 24-hour primary enrichment, followed by 24-hour secondary enrichment, and qPCR testing of soil DNA at primary and secondary steps is a reproducible and more expedient method for co-detecting common Enterobacteriaceae and L. monocytogenes pathogens in soil.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Resistome metagenomics from plate to farm: the resistome and microbial composition during food waste feeding and composting on a Vermont poultry farm 95%
- A biochemical analysis of Black Soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larval frass plant growth promoting activity 94%
- A comparison of several media types and basic techniques used to assess outdoor airborne fungi in Melbourne, Australia. 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing Microbial Diversity in Soil Samples Along the Potomac River: Implications for Environmental Health 94%
- Investigating the distribution of antibiotic resistance genes in relation to bacterial, fungal, and functional diversity in a hay field. 93%
- Investigating the resistome, taxonomic composition, andmobilome of bacterial communities in hospital wastewaters ofMetro Manila using a shotgun metagenomics approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Environmental surveillance of soil-transmitted helminths and other enteric pathogens in settings without networked wastewater infrastructure 95%
- Simultaneous detection and quantification of multiple pathogen targets in wastewater 93%
- Advancing antimicrobial resistance monitoring in surface waters with metagenomic and quasimetagenomic methods 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Optimization of subsampling, decontamination, and DNA extraction of difficult peat and silt permafrost samples 95%
- Mapping of long-term impact of conventional and organic soil management on resident and active fractions of rhizosphere communities of barley (Hordeum vulgare) 93%
- Pig manure treatment strategies for mitigating the spread of antibiotic resistance 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.