Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36014065›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2022

Evaluation of Various Lactic Acid Bacteria and Generic

Caitlin E Karolenko, Jade Wilkinson, Peter M Muriana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caitlin E KarolenkoRobert M. Kerr Food and Agricultural Product Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.
Jade WilkinsonRobert M. Kerr Food and Agricultural Product Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.
Peter M MurianaRobert M. Kerr Food and Agricultural Product Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6448-1769
Oklahoma State University · US

Funding

Advance Foods-SE Gilliland Professorship in Microbial Food Safety #21-57200Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources #OKL03090Robert M. Kerr Food & Ag Products Center (in kind)USDA-FSIS Graduate Fellowship (Ms. Karolenko) (supplies, PhD assistantship 2021-2022)USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project #OKL03090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Validation studies conducted within a food processing facility using surrogate organisms could better represent the manufacturing process than controlled laboratory studies with pathogenic bacteria on precision equipment in a BSL-2 lab. The objectives of this project were to examine potential surrogate bacteria during biltong processing, conduct biltong surrogate validation lethality studies, and measure critical factors and intrinsic parameters during processing. Beef pieces (1.9 cm × 5.1 cm × 7.6 cm) were inoculated with four-strain mixtures of Carnobacterium divergens/C. gallinarum, Pediococcus acidilactici/P. pentosaceous, and Biotype 1 E. coli ATCC BAA (-1427, -1428, -1429, and -1430), as well as a two-strain mixture of Latilactobacillus sakei and other commercially available individual bacterial cultures (P. acidilactici Saga200/Kerry Foods; Enterococcus faecium 201224-016/Vivolac Cultures). Inoculated beef was vacuum-tumbled in marinade and dried in a humidity-controlled oven for 8−10 days (24.9 °C; 55% relative humidity). Microbial enumeration of surviving surrogate bacteria and evaluation of intrinsic factors (water activity, pH, and salt concentration) were performed post inoculation, post marination, and after 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 days of drying. Trials were performed in duplicate replication with triplicate samples per sampling time and analyzed by one-way RM-ANOVA. Trials conducted with E. faecium, Pediococcus spp., and L. sakei never demonstrated more than 2 log reduction during the biltong process. However, Carnobacterium achieved a >5 log (5.85 log) reduction over a drying period of 8 days and aligned with the reductions observed in previous trials with pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes, and S. aureus) in biltong validation studies. Studies comparing resuspended freeze-dried or frozen cells vs. freshly grown cells for beef inoculation showed no significant differences during biltong processing. Carnobacterium spp. would be an effective nonpathogenic in-plant surrogate to monitor microbial safety that mimics the response of pathogenic bacteria to validate biltong processing within a manufacturer’s own facility.

Indexed as

biltongCarnobacteriumdried beeflactic acid bacteriasurrogatevalidation

Identifiers

PMID36014065
PMCPMC9414461
OpenAlexW4292073118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.