Microbiology Reader
Equipment to run microbiology work automatically

Growth Curves of any strain.
Microbiological calculations.

Microbiology Home
Microbioloy Reader
Growth Curves
Photo Album
Microorganisms
Software
Download
Purchasing
Contact Us

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, October 2004, p . 6299-6301, Vol . 70, No . 10

Rapid Quantitative Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in Meat Products by Real-Time PCR

David Rodríguez-Lázaro,1 Anna Jofré,2 Teresa Aymerich,2 Marta Hugas,2,{dagger} and Maria Pla1*

Institute of Food and Agricultural Technology, University of Girona, Girona,1 Institute for Food and Agricultural Research and Technology, Meat Technology Center-IRTA, Monells, Spain2

Received 20 February 2004/ Accepted 31 May 2004

ABSTRACT

We describe a quick and simple method for the quantitative detection of Listeria monocytogenes in meat products . This method is based on filtration, Chelex-100-based DNA purification, and real-time PCR . It can detect as few as 100 CFU/g and quantify as few as 1,000 CFU/g, with excellent accuracy compared to that of the plate count method . Therefore, it is a promising alternative for the detection of L . monocytogenes in meat products .

Listeria monocytogenes is a human pathogen widely distributed in the environment (15, 16, 31) . Meat products are a major source of L . monocytogenes (9, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32) . As clinical cases of listeriosis are usually associated with high loads of L . monocytogenes (10, 11) and as it is difficult to eradicate listeriae from the environment of the food processing plants (12), the International Commission on Microbiological Specification for Foods concluded that 100 CFU of L . monocytogenes per g of food at the time of consumption is acceptable for nonrisk consumers (14, 19) .

Conventional testing methods for the detection of L . monocytogenes in food involve growth in preenrichment medium, followed by growth on selective medium and a battery of confirmatory biochemical and serological tests (11) . These methods are labor-intensive and time-consuming, often taking up to 10 days . A rapid alternative method is real-time (RTi)-PCR, which allows an accurate and unambiguous identification and a precise quantification of nucleic acid sequences (17, 20) . Furthermore, the lack of post-PCR steps reduces the risk of cross-contamination and allows high throughput and automation .

We present a rapid and sensitive assay for the reliable quantitative identification of L . monocytogenes organisms in meat products based on a simple and rapid sample handling and RTi-PCR .

Optimization of the assay.

In two independent experiments (as recommended in International Organization for Standardization document ISO 16140 [6]), we artificially contaminated 25 g of cooked ham slices (7) containing 2% fat (4) with decreasing amounts of an overnight culture of L . monocytogenes CTC 1010 (100 µl of 10-fold dilutions in peptone water to reach from 106 to 10 CFU/g) . Slices were vacuum packed to allow better distribution of the inoculum and immediately diluted (1:10) with 0.1% peptone-0.85% NaCl and homogenized for 1 min in stomacher bags (125-µm pore size; Biochek) . L . monocytogenes was identified and quantified in all samples by both standard microbiological methods (according to document ISO 11290 [5]) and RTi-PCR-based methods performed at least in triplicate .

We compared three different pre-PCR filtration treatments: (i) no additional filtration, (ii) filtration through a 22- to 25-µm-pore-size filter (Miracloth filter; Calbiochem), and (iii) filtration through a nylon membrane with an 11-µm pore size (Millipore) . In theory, L . monocytogenes should not be retained by either of these filters (30) . We also tested the convenience of an additional DNA purification and concentration step . Two milliliters of each sample was centrifuged for 5 min at 10,000 x g and 4°C . The pellets were suspended in 100 µl of a suspension of 6% Chelex-100 resin (Bio-Rad) in water, incubated at 56°C for 20 min, vortexed, boiled for 8 min, vortexed again, and immediately chilled on ice . Finally, the sample was centrifuged for 5 min at 14,000 x g . Chelex-100 is an ion-exchange resin specifically designed for extraction of PCR-ready template DNA . The removal of PCR inhibitors is accomplished by scavenging of contaminating metal ions that catalyze the digestion of DNA . In addition, an improvement in the lysis of gram-positive bacteria has been reported (28) . TaqMan-based RTi-PCR assays targeting the hly gene (25) were performed in parallel with 1 µl of either the initial filtrate (without nucleic acid isolation) or the Chelex-100 final supernatant . Bacterial concentrations were calculated by interpolation of the cycle threshold (CT) values to a standard curve constructed with serial dilutions of an L . monocytogenes genomic DNA solution previously quantified with PicoGreen (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, Oreg.) in an LS50B luminescence spectrometer (Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, Conn.) .

The inclusion of a Chelex-100-based DNA purification step prior to RTi-PCR considerably increased the sensitivity of the method (Table 1); i.e., detection was consistent down to 103 CFU/g and organisms could be detected in at least 50% of the replicates containing 102 CFU/g of cooked ham . According to our Chelex-100-based pre-PCR protocols, 103 CFU/g renders theoretically 2 genome equivalents per RTi-PCR . Thus, inoculum levels below this one should produce inconsistent RTi-PCR results (i.e., 102 CFU/g renders 0.2 genome equivalents per reaction, or 1 genome equivalent with a probability of 20%) . Moreover, this result was independent of the filtration conditions . In contrast, RTi-PCR analyses performed directly after filtration were only capable of consistently detecting 104 CFU/g . We therefore concluded that a Chelex-100-based DNA purification step is essential to attain a detection limit compatible with the current recommended levels for L . monocytogenes (19) .


TABLE 1 . RTi-PCR-based detection of L . monocytogenes with three filtration strategies and with and without Chelex-100-based DNA purificationa

 
We then evaluated the ability of the method to quantify L . monocytogenes organisms in cooked ham . We constructed regression curves of the CT values obtained from cooked ham samples and the corresponding L . monocytogenes inocula . The coefficient of correlations (R2) (Table 2) demonstrated that the quantification method was linear over a range of four logs, from 106 to 103 CFU/g . The efficiency of the reaction (18), the optimal value of which is 1 (i.e., with the slope of the regression curve being –3.32 [13]), was determined (Table 2) and indicated that the RTi-PCR performance was excellent (above 0.83) with all of the pre-PCR filtration treatments . Moreover, these values were similar to those obtained when DNA or bacterial pure cultures were analyzed (25) . In conclusion, the RTi-PCR assays worked well for samples of cooked ham treated as described above .


TABLE 2 . Linearity of RTi-PCR CT values versus numbers of CFU of L . monocytogenes organisms per gram of cooked hama

 
One parameter that is critical for the validation of an alternative method is the relative accuracy, i.e., the closeness of agreement between a test result and the accepted reference value (documents ISO 3534-1 [4a] and ISO 16140 [6]) . A relative accuracy of 100% indicates total agreement between the alternative method and the reference method . In two independent experiments, we artificially contaminated samples of cooked ham with 100 µl of serial 10-fold dilutions of an overnight L . monocytogenes culture (from approximately 106 to 103 CFU/g) . The mean CT values determined were extrapolated to the corresponding standard regression curve, previously calculated experimentally, and the resulting theoretical CFU numbers were compared to those obtained by the standard L . monocytogenes enumeration method (document ISO 11290 [5]) . The relative accuracy of the RTi-PCR-based method with respect to the reference plate count method (5) varied from 89.12 to 116.28% (Table 3), which fits with document ISO 16140 recommendations (6) . Interestingly, all three filtration strategies produced similar results, indicating that they can all be used .


TABLE 3 . Relative accuracy of RTi-PCR assay with Chelex-100-based purification for quantification of L . monocytogenes organismsa

 
We previously demonstrated that the RTi-PCR assay used in this work was appropriate for the precise quantification of an L . monocytogenes strain regardless of its genetic background by extensive evaluation of the assay using a large panel of isolates of serovars of this bacterium . The homogeneous results obtained for isolates representative of the three phylogenetic divisions of the species indicated that this assay can be applied to the entire species L . monocytogenes (25) . Therefore, it is likely that the methods here developed are suitable for the detection and quantification of L . monocytogenes in cooked ham regardless of the serovar .

Application to other meat products.

We assessed the applicability of our method to different meat products (according to the recommendations of document ISO 16140 [6]): raw pork (4.99% fat), Frankfurter sausages (19.8% fat), and fermented sausages (38.2% fat) . In three independent experiments, slices of each meat product were artificially contaminated with decreasing amounts of an L . monocytogenes CTC 1010 overnight culture and analyzed by both standard microbiological and RTi-PCR-based methods . The sensitivity and quantification capacity of the RTi-PCR method were consistently as good as for cooked ham . With the 11-µm-pore-size filtration strategy, consistent detection was achieved down to 102 CFU/g (Table 4) and excellent relative accuracy values were obtained for the three matrices down to 103 CFU/g (Table 4) . Thus, the method of choice combined pre-PCR filtration through nylon membrane with 11-µm pores and Chelex-100-based purification . This method can be used to analyze a spectrum of meat products that differ in the ways they are processed, fat contents, or accompanying microbiotas; it is quick and easy to perform, which is especially relevant for protocols for routine use in food microbiology laboratories .


TABLE 4 . Accuracy of the quantification of L . monocytogenes organisms by RTi-PCR in three different food matricesa

 
As foods are complex matrices, several publications report on filtration or Chelex-100-based protocols for PCR detection of various pathogenic species (reviewed in references 23 and 28); however, to our knowledge they have never been used with quantitative purposes . Most available detection systems require selective enrichment steps to overcome the problem of potential PCR inhibitors, especially for low pathogen concentrations (1, 2, 3, 8, 26) . Remarkably, our method does not require any culture steps, meaning that results can be obtained considerably quicker . Moreover, it is compatible with the ISO methods for detection and for enumeration of L . monocytogenes . The RTi-PCR assay (25) could be used in combination with our pre-PCR strategy (single filtration step and Chelex DNA purification) as a complementary routine technique for the quick quantification of L . monocytogenes down to 1,000 CFU/g and detection of down to 100 CFU/g in meat products .

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología projects (INIA grants CAL01-058-C2-2 and AGL2002-03496) .


   FOOTNOTES

 
* Corresponding author . Mailing address: Institute of Food and Agricultural Technology, University of Girona, Campus Montilivi s/n, E-17071 Girona, Spain . Phone: 34-972 419852 . Fax: 34-972 418399 . E-mail: maria.pla{at}udg.es .

FOOTNOTES

{dagger} Present address: European Food Safety Authority, B-1140 Brussels, Belgium .

REFERENCES

  1. Abu Al-Soud, W. 2000 . Optimization of diagnostic PCR . A study of PCR inhibitors in blood and sample pretreatment . Ph.D . thesis . Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
  2. Abu Al-Soud, W., and P . Rådström. 2000 . Effects of amplification facilitators on diagnostic PCR in the presence of blood, feces, and meat . J . Clin . Microbiol . 38:4463-4470.
  3. Abu Al-Soud, W., and P . Rådström. 2001 . Purification and characterization of PCR-inhibitory components in blood cells . J . Clin . Microbiol . 39:485-493.
  4. Anonymous. 1979 . Presidencia del gobierno español . Métodos de análisis de productos cárnicos . Bol . Of . Estado 207:2022.
  5. Anonymous. 1993 . Statistics—vocabulary and symbols . Part 1: probability and general statistical terms . ISO 3534-1 . International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  6. Anonymous. 1998 . Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs . Horizontal method for the detection and enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes . Part 2: enumeration method . ISO 11290-2 . International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  7. Anonymous. 2003 . Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs . Protocol for the validation of alternative methods . ISO 16140 . International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  8. Aymerich, T., M . Garriga, S . Cosat, J . M . Monfort, and M . Hugas. 2002 . Prevention of ropiness in cooked pork by bacteriocinogenic cultures . Int . Dairy J . 12:239-246.
  9. Bhagwat, A . A. 2003 . Simultaneous detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella strains by real-time PCR . Int . J . Food Microbiol . 84:217-224.
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000 . Multistate outbreak of listeriosis—United States, 2000 . Morb . Mortal . Wkly . Rep . 49:1129-1130.
  11. Dalton, C . B., C . C . Austin, J . Sobel, P . S . Hayes, W . F . Bibb, L . M . Graves, B . Swaminathan, M . E . Proctor, and P . M . Griffin. 1997 . An outbreak of gastroenteritis and fever due to Listeria monocytogenes in milk . N . Engl . J . Med . 336:100-105.
  12. Farber, J . M., and P . I . Peterkin. 1991 . Listeria monocytogenes, a food-borne pathogen . Microbiol . Rev . 55:476-511.
  13. Gravani, R. 1999 . Incidence and control of Listeria in food-processing facilities, p . 657-709 . In E . T . Ryser and E . H . Marth (ed.) Listeria, listeriosis, and food safety, 2nd . ed . Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, N.Y.
  14. Higuchi, R., C . Fockler, G . Dollinger, and R . Watson. 1993 . Kinetic PCR analysis: real-time monitoring of DNA amplification reactions . Biotechnology 11:1026-1030.
  15. International Commission on Microbiological Specification for Foods. 1996 . Establishment of sampling plans for microbiological safety criteria for foods in international trade, including recommendations for control of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enteritidis, Campylobacter and enterohemorrhagic E . coli . Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, 29th session, 21 to 25 October 1996 . Agenda item 11, CX/FH 96/91-16 . Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy.
  16. Kathariou, S. 1999 . Pathogenesis determinants of Listeria monocytogenes, p . 295-314 . In J . W . Cary, J . Linz, and D . Bhatnagar (ed.), Microbial foodborne diseases: mechanisms of pathogenesis and toxin synthesis . Technomic Publishing Co . Inc., Lancaster, Pa.
  17. Kathariou, S. 2002 . Listeria monocytogenes virulence and pathogenicity, a food safety perspective . J . Food Prot . 65:1811-1829.
  18. Klein, D. 2002 . Quantification using real-time PCR technology: applications and limitations . Trends Mol . Med . 8:257-260.
  19. Knutsson, R., C . Löfström, H . Grage, J . Hoorfar, and P . Rådström. 2002 . Modeling of 5' nuclease real-time responses for optimization of a high-throughput enrichment PCR procedure for Salmonella enterica. J . Clin . Microbiol . 40:52-60.
  20. Nørrung, B. 2000 . Microbiological criteria for Listeria monocytogenes in foods under special consideration of risk assessment approaches . Int . J . Food Microbiol . 62:217-221.
  21. Norton, D . M. 2000 . Polymerase chain reaction-based methods for detection of Listeria monocytogenes: toward real-time screening for food and environmental samples . J . AOAC Int . 85:505-515.
  22. Ojeniyi, B., H . C . Wegwnwe, N . E . Jensen, and M . Bisgaard. 1996 . Listeria monocytogenes in poultry and poultry products: epidemiological investigations in seven Danish abattoirs . J . Appl . Bacteriol . 80:395-401.
  23. Peccio, A., T . Autio, H . Korkeala, R . Rosmini, and M . Trevisani. 2003 . Listeria monocytogenes occurrence and characterization in meat-producing plants . Lett . Appl . Microbiol . 37:234-238.
  24. Rijpens, N . P., and L . M . Herman. 2002 . Molecular methods for identification and detection of bacterial food pathogens . J . AOAC Int . 85:984-995.
  25. Rocourt, J., A . Hogue, H . Toyofuku, C . Jacquet, and J . Schlundt. 2001 . Listeria and listeriosis: risk assessment as a new tool to unravel a multifaceted problem . Am . J . Infect . Control 29:225-227.
  26. Rodríguez-Lázaro, D., M . Hernández, M . Scortti, T . Esteve, J . A . Vázquez-Boland, and M . Pla. 2004 . Quantitative detection of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua by real-time PCR: assessment of hly, iap, and lin02483 targets and AmpliFluor technology . Appl . Environ . Microbiol . 70:1366-1377.
  27. Rossen, L., P . Norskov, K . Holmstrom, and O . F . Rasmussen. 1992 . Inhibition of PCR by components of food samples, microbial diagnostic assays and DNA-extraction solutions . Int . J . Food Microbiol . 17:37-45.
  28. Samelis, J., and J . Metaxopoulos. 1999 . Incidence and principal sources of Listeria spp . and Listeria monocytogenes contamination in processed meats and a meat processing plant . Food Microbiol . 16:465-477.
  29. Scheu, P . M., K . Berghof, and U . Stahl. 1998 . Detection of pathogenic and spoilage micro-organisms in food with the polymerase chain reaction . Food Microbiol . 15:13-31.
  30. Schlech, W . F., III, P . M . Lavigne, R . A . Bortolussi, A . C . Allen, E . V . Haldane, A . J . Wort, A . W . Hightower, S . E . Johnson, S . H . King, E . S . Nicholls, and C . V . Broome. 1983 . Epidemic listeriosis—evidence for transmission by food . N . Engl . J . Med . 308:203-206.
  31. Seeliger, H . P . R., and D . Jones. 1986 . Listeriae, p . 1235-1245 . In P . H . A . Sneath, N . S . Mair, M . E . Sharoe, and J . G . Holt (ed.), Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology . Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.
  32. Vázquez-Boland, J . A., M . Kuhn, P . Berche, T . Chakraborty, G . Domínguez-Bernal, W . Goebel, B . González-Zorn, J . Wehland, and J . Kreft. 2001 . Listeria pathogenesis and molecular virulence determinants . Clin . Microbiol . Rev . 14:584-640.
  33. Wing, E . J., and S . H . Gregory. 2002 . Listeria monocytogenes: clinical and experimental update . J . Infect . Dis . 185(Suppl . 1):S18-S24.

 

 

 

Free Online Full-text Article

 

 

 

 

What Is Genome?, What Is Pcr?, What Is Yeast?, What Is Activated Sludge?, What Is Cell Biology?, s, Microbiology, r, Bacterium, c, Bacteriology, s, Microbe, c, Microorganism, e, Clostridia, n, Antimicrobials, n, Neisseria, i, Salmonella, n, Erwinia, r, Escherichia coli, a, Microbial, o, Staphylococcus, e, Botulism, a, Cell cultures, o, Bacillus, o, Escherichia coli, e, Escherichia coli, c, Minimal inhibiting concentration, c, Microorganisms, c, Klebsiella, a, Bacteria, e, Erythromycin, e, Haemophilus, o, Microbial, s, Escherichia coli




 

   Scientific Publications - Work Done by Microbiology Reader Bioscreen C
Agricultural Microbiology
Anaerobic Microbiology
Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Artificial Atmosphere
Bioassay of Antibiotics
Biofilm Microbiology
Bioreactor Technology
Biotechnology
Cell Biology
Clinical Microbiology
Environmental Microbiology
Experiments with Yeast		 Fermentation
Food Microbiology
Functional Genomics
Gene Technology
Growth Media Development
Growth Rate and Lag Time
Industrial Microbiology
Medical/Pharmaceutical Field
Microbiological Assay
Microbiological Research
Microbiology of Cosmetics

go to a specific theme...

 Military Microbiology
Molecular Microbiology
Mutagenicity and Genotoxicity
Oral Microbiology
Patents
Postantibiotic Studies
Soil Microbiology
Spore Microbiology
Veterinary Microbiology
Waste/Wastewater Treatment
Water Microbiology
Wine Microbiology

 


 

© 2005 Transgalactic Ltd (manufacturer of Bioscreen C software) | Privacy Statement | P.O. Box 1393, 00101 Helsinki, Finland, phone: +358 9 85172920, fax: +358 9 8749481, e-mail: microbiology@bionewsonline.com
 

 

 

Last modified: May 25, 2005