Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11427557›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Comparison of cultivation and PCR-hybridization for detection of Salmonella in porcine fecal and water samples.

I Feder, J C Nietfeld, J Galland, T Yeary, J M Sargeant, R Oberst, M L Tamplin, J B Luchansky

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identification ofVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

I FederMicrobial Food Safety Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania 19038, USA. ifeder@arserrc.gov
J C Nietfeld
J Galland
T Yeary
J M Sargeant
R Oberst
M L Tamplin
J B Luchansky
Kansas State University · USAgricultural Research Service · USEastern Regional Research Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A total of 150 fecal and water samples from four swine farms were tested for the presence of Salmonella enterica using different enrichment techniques as follows: (i) 92 fecal samples from nursery and farrowing barns at three swine farms were preenriched overnight in tryptic soy broth (TSB) at 37 degrees C followed by overnight enrichment in Rappaport-Vassiliadis 10 broth (RV10) at 42 degrees C; (ii) 24 water samples from the third farm were preenriched overnight in 3MC broth at 37 degrees C followed by overnight enrichment in RV10 at 42 degrees C; and (iii) 34 fecal samples from a fourth farm, a finishing farm, were enriched overnight in RV10 at 42 degrees C with no additional enrichment. Following each of the enrichment techniques, samples were subcultured onto modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV) agar prior to transfer to Hektoen Enteric agar plates for the recovery of viable Salmonella bacteria. Presumptive Salmonella isolates were biochemically and serologically confirmed. For the PCR detection of Salmonella, a 1-ml portion was removed from each sample after the first overnight enrichment and the DNA was extracted using a Sepharose CL-6B spin column. Amplicons (457 bp) derived from primers to the invA and invE genes were confirmed as Salmonella specific on ethidium bromide-stained agarose gels by Southern hybridization with a 20-mer oligonucleotide probe specific for the Salmonella invA gene. Neither the standard microbiological method nor the molecular method detected all of the 65 samples that tested positive by both methods or either method alone. Salmonella bacteria were detected by both cultivation and PCR-hybridization in 68% (17 of 25) of the positive samples that were preenriched in TSB, in 73% (11 of 15) of the positive samples preenriched in 3MC broth, and in 24% (6 of 25) of the positive samples enriched in RV10. Agreement between Salmonella detection using cultivation with preenrichment and detection by PCR was 76% using the kappa statistic. However, agreement between Salmonella detection using cultivation without preenrichment and detection by PCR was about 6%; the PCR assay detected 80% (20 of 25) of the 25 positive samples, while Salmonella bacteria were recovered from only 44% (11 of 25) by cultivation. Our results indicate that the PCR-hybridization approach is equivalent to or better than cultivation for detecting Salmonella in swine feces or water samples from swine farms when using the medium combinations evaluated in this study.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyAnimal HusbandryAnimalsBlotting, SouthernCulture MediaDNA, BacterialElectrophoresis, Agar GelFecesPolymerase Chain ReactionSalmonella entericaSalmonella Infections, AnimalSwineSwine DiseasesCulture MediaDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID11427557
PMCPMC88173
OpenAlexW1989326119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.