Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The PCR-based method has gained acceptability as an alternative method for assessing the microbial safety of foods. In this study, the performance of PCR-based DNA Amplification System™ (DAS™) detection kits, namely, E. coli DAS™, S. aureus DAS™, E. coli O157:H7 DAS™ and Salmonella DAS™, were compared with reference methods in detecting the pathogens Escherichia coli , Staphylococcus aureus , E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. in 130 naturally- and artificially-contaminated chicken and meat-based grilled and fried street food samples. E. coli DAS™ displayed very good agreement with the reference method with a kappa value of 0.92 in chicken-based samples. S. aureus DAS™ also demonstrated very good agreement with the same kappa value of 0.92 but in meat-based samples. On the other hand, E. coli O157:H7 DAS™ and Salmonella DAS™ exhibited lower kappa values ranging from 0.67 to 0.76 in both food types. E. coli DAS™ obtained a high relative accuracy of 96% in chicken-based samples. S. aureus DAS™ also obtained a similar relative accuracy value of 96% but in meat-based samples. In terms of relative sensitivity, E. coli DAS™ and E. coli O157:H7 DAS™ showed high values of 96% and 95%, respectively, in chicken-based samples. Furthermore, E. coli DAS™, S. aureus DAS™ and Salmonella DAS™ demonstrated high relative specificities of 97%, 100% and 96% in chicken-, chicken-meat and meat-based samples, respectively. The performance of these kits was found to vary with food matrix, enrichment and cell-lysing procedures. Inclusion of internal amplification control, using more effective cell-lysing and enrichment procedures are suggested to enhance the overall performance of the kits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manguiat et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: