Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9251182›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology1997

Evaluation of luciferase reporter bacteriophage A511::luxAB for detection of Listeria monocytogenes in contaminated foods.

M J Loessner, M Rudolf, S Scherer

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Luminescent Phage-Based Detection ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Phage-Based Applications in Synthetic Biology.Annual review of virology · 2018
    Review
  15. Engineering of Bacteriophages Y2::Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017
    Article
  16. Genetically Engineered Phages: a Review of Advances over the Last Decade.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2016
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Prevention of bacterial foodborne disease using nanobiotechnology.Nanotechnology, science and applications · 2014
    Review
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.

M J LoessnerInstitut für Mikrobiologie, Technische Universität München, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany. M.J.Loessner@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
M Rudolf
S Scherer
Technical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A511::luxAB is a recombinant derivative of a broad-host-range bacteriophage specific for the genus Listeria, transducing bacterial bioluminescence into infected cells. In this study, we have evaluated its use for rapid and easy testing of contaminated foods and environmental samples for the presence of viable Listeria cells, in comparison to the standard plating procedure. With a short preenrichment step of 20 h, the system was capable of detecting very low initial contamination rates in several foods artificially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes Scott A cells. In ricotta cheese, chocolate pudding, and cabbage, less than one cell per g of food could be clearly identified by comparing the light emission of phage-infected samples to that of controls without lux phage. In foods having a large and complex microbial background flora, such as minced meat and soft cheese, at least 10 cells per g were necessary to produce a positive bioluminescence signal. Of 348 potentially contaminated natural food and environmental samples, 55 were found to be Listeria positive by the lux phage method. The standard plating procedure detected 57 positive samples. Some differences were observed with respect to the individual samples, i.e., the lux phage procedure detected more positive samples among the dairy products and environmental samples, whereas the plating procedure revealed more contaminated meat and poultry samples. Overall, both methods performed similarly, i.e., were equally sensitive. However, the minimum time required for detection of Listeria with the luciferase phage assay was 24 h, which is much shorter than the 4 days needed by the standard plating method. Furthermore, a most probable number technique with three parallels, based on the use of A511::luxAB for differentiation of positive and negative tubes, is described. The method enables rapid enumeration of low levels of Listeria cells in several foods tested, against the background of a competing microflora.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriological TechniquesBacteriophagesDairy ProductsEvaluation Studies as TopicFood ContaminationFood MicrobiologyGenes, ReporterListeria monocytogenesLuciferasesMeatPoultrySensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsLuciferases

Identifiers

PMID9251182
PMCPMC168593
OpenAlexW2167298528

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.