Comparison of Stomaching versus Rinsing for Recovering Bacterial Communities from Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Fillets

Author:

HELSENS NICOLAS12,CALVEZ SÉGOLÈNE2,BOUJU-ALBERT AGNÈS1,ROSSERO ALBERT1,PRÉVOST HERVÉ1,MAGRAS CATHERINE1

Affiliation:

1. SECALIM, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Oniris, 44300, Nantes, France

2. BIOEPAR, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Oniris, 44300, Nantes, France (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8902-0486 [N.H.]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6145-2666 [S.C.]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9384-8382 [H.P.])

Abstract

ABSTRACT The use of high-throughput methods allows a better characterization of food-related bacterial communities. However, such methods require large amounts of high-quality bacterial DNA, which may be a challenge when dealing with a complex matrix that has a low concentration of bacteria, such as fresh fish fillets. Therefore, the choice of method used to recover bacteria from a food matrix in a cost-effective way is critical, yet little information is available on the performance of commonly used methods. We assessed the recovery capacity of two such methods: stomaching and mechanical rinsing. The efficiency of the methods was evaluated through quantitative recovery and compatibility with end-point quantitative PCR (qPCR). Fresh rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fillets were inoculated with a bacterial marker, Brochothrix thermosphacta, at different concentrations (7.52 to 1.52 log CFU/g). The fillets were processed by one of the two methods, and the recovery of the marker in the suspensions was assessed by plate counting and qPCR targeting B. thermosphacta–rpoC. The same analyses were performed on six noninoculated fresh fillets. Stomaching and mechanical rinsing allowed efficient and repeatable recovery of the bacterial communities from the 42 inoculated fillets. No significant differences in recovery ratios were observed between the marker enumerated in the inoculation suspensions and in the corresponding recovery suspensions after rinsing and stomaching. However, the stomaching method allowed too many particles to pass through the filters bag, making necessary a limiting supplementary filtration step. As a consequence, only the rinsing recovery method allowed proper PCR quantification of the inoculated B. thermosphacta. The mean recovered bacterial level of the fillets was approximately 3 log CFU/g. It seems more relevant and cost-effective to recover the endogenous bacterial microbiota of a fish fillet structure using the rinsing method rather than the stomaching method. HIGHLIGHTS

Publisher

International Association for Food Protection

Subject

Microbiology,Food Science

Reference36 articles.

1. Allen, H. K. 2014. Antibiotic resistance gene discovery in food-producing animals.Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 19: 25–29.

2. Alnajrani, M., Hanlon K., English A., Fermin K., Brashears M. M., and EcheverryA. 2018. Comparing the recovery of indicator microorganisms from beef trimmings using swabbing, rinsing, and grinding methodologies.Meat Muscle Biol. 2: 139.

3. Anderson, M. E., Huff H. E., Naumann H. D., Marshall R. T., Damare J., Johnston R., and PrattM. 1987. Evaluation of swab and tissue excision methods for recovering microorganisms from washed and sanitized beef carcasses.J. Food Prot. 50: 741–743.

4. Austin, B. 2006. The bacterial microflora of fish, revised.Sci. World J. 6: 931–945.

5. Avens, J. S., and MillerB. F. 1970. Quantifying bacteria on poultry carcass skin.Poult. Sci. 49: 1309–1315.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3