Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25742168›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2015

Detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens from individual filth flies.

Monica Pava-Ripoll, Rachel E G Pearson, Amy K Miller, George C Ziobro

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Colistin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Analysis of the Molecular Diversity AmongFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL)-ProducingInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  10. Risk Factors and Level ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Monica Pava-RipollCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Monica.Pava-Ripoll@fda.hhs.gov.
Rachel E G PearsonCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Amy K MillerCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
George C ZiobroCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is unanimous consensus that insects are important vectors of foodborne pathogens. However, linking insects as vectors of the pathogen causing a particular foodborne illness outbreak has been challenging. This is because insects are not being aseptically collected as part of an environmental sampling program during foodborne outbreak investigations and because there is not a standardized method to detect foodborne bacteria from individual insects. To take a step towards solving this problem, we adapted a protocol from a commercially available PCR-based system that detects foodborne pathogens from food and environmental samples, to detect foodborne pathogens from individual flies.Using this standardized protocol, we surveyed 100 wild-caught flies for the presence of Cronobacter spp., Salmonella enterica, and Listeria monocytogenes and demonstrated that it was possible to detect and further isolate these pathogens from the body surface and the alimentary canal of a single fly. Twenty-two percent of the alimentary canals and 8% of the body surfaces from collected wild flies were positive for at least one of the three foodborne pathogens. The prevalence of Cronobacter spp. on either body part of the flies was statistically higher (19%) than the prevalence of S. enterica (7%) and L.monocytogenes (4%). No false positives were observed when detecting S. enterica and L. monocytogenes using this PCR-based system because pure bacterial cultures were obtained from all PCR-positive results. However, pure Cronobacter colonies were not obtained from about 50% of PCR-positive samples, suggesting that the PCR-based detection system for this pathogen cross-reacts with other Enterobacteriaceae present among the highly complex microbiota carried by wild flies. The standardized protocol presented here will allow laboratories to detect bacterial foodborne pathogens from aseptically collected insects, thereby giving public health officials another line of evidence to find out how the food was contaminated when performing foodborne outbreak investigations.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriological TechniquesCronobacterDigestive SystemDipteraFood MicrobiologyListeria monocytogenesPolymerase Chain ReactionSalmonella enterica

Identifiers

PMID25742168
PMCPMC4354650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.