Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2001, p. 459-461, Vol. 67, No. 1
Department of Food Science, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Received 31 May 2000/Accepted 20 October 2000
Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis was detected in
artificially inoculated eggs within 24 h through a rapid
monoclonal antibody-based dot blot immunoassay. Detection in poultry
and other products required 28 h. Samples were directly enriched
in homogenized egg without the need for pre- or postenrichment steps. Serovar Enteritidis was detected in the presence of other bacteria when
outcompeted 1:400.
Conventional methods for detection
of Salmonella in foods are labor-intensive, time-consuming,
and expensive. It has also been found that some of the routinely used
selective enrichment broths are inhibitory towards Salmonella
enterica serovar Enteritidis (28). Rapid methods
based on principles such as membrane technology (11),
latex agglutination (27), immunoassays (6, 18, 30), and immunomagnetic separation (8, 9, 19) have
been developed. Methods employing PCR in combination with preenrichment broths (24, 31, 32), immunomagnetic separation (25,
26), or centrifugation (21, 22) are currently being developed.
Immunologically based methods specific for serovar Enteritidis suffer
from the same drawbacks as the above methods: one or more enrichment
broths, or in some cases, postenrichment broths, are required.
Cross-reactivity has also been observed with most monoclonal
antibodies produced against serovar Enteritidis (17, 18,
27). This report describes the development of a rapid dot blot
immunoassay for the detection of serovar Enteritidis in eggs, poultry,
and other products.
Large grade A eggs were scrubbed with 70% ethanol and opened
aseptically. Eggs were mixed for 30 s using a stomacher lab
blender 400 (Seward Laboratory, London, England) and were inoculated
with either serovar Enteritidis phage type 1, 4, 8, 13, or 13a. After incubation, 25-ml portions were placed into 50-ml polypropylene tubes,
and 0.1 volume of 15% sodium cholate in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) (pH 7.2) was added. After being mixed, tubes were placed in
boiling water for 10 min and cooled for 30 min at 4°C. Through
heating, the egg mixture was solidified, forming a solid egg gel. After
cooling, the gel was removed from the tube, and a sterile core borer
(10-mm diameter) was used to create small cylindrical gels. The
cylindrical gels were then cut into disks of 2 mm in thickness.
Nitrocellulose strips (8.5 by 2.5 cm) were prewetted with PBS prior to
use. Egg disks were placed on the membrane for 5 min, removed, and
washed for 2 min in PBS. Strips were blocked for 45 min in 5% skim
milk powder in Tris-buffered saline (pH 7.5) and incubated with a
murine monoclonal antibody solution (tissue culture supernatant) for 45 min, followed by 1 h of incubation in biotinylated goat anti-mouse
immunoglobulin G. Strips were incubated with
streptavidin-alkaline phosphatase for 1 h and developed with
a
BCIP (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolylphosphate)-nitroblue tetrazolium chloride
substrate solution. Membranes were washed twice with Tris-buffered
saline containing 0.05% Tween 20 for 2 min between each step. All
steps were performed at room temperature.
Bacterial cultures were serially diluted to appropriate inoculum levels
and confirmed by plating on standard plate count agar in triplicate.
Negative controls were inoculated with 0.1% peptone water. When the
specificity of the assay was evaluated, the negative control contained
all bacterial species except S. enterica serovar Enteritidis. Artificially inoculated samples were also tested through
conventional culture methods (1) with serological
confirmation (Salmonella O-9 antiserum). For samples
containing a mixed population of bacteria, Salmonella O-4
and O-5 antisera were used to differentiate between B and
D1 serogroups.
For detection of serovar Enteritidis in eggs, cultures were enriched
directly in homogenized eggs without the need for preenrichment or selective enrichment steps. This method demonstrated that only 20 h of incubation, without the need to isolate the organism, was
required to enrich serovar Enteritidis to detectable levels (Fig.
1). After incubation, initial inocula of
1, 5, 10, 50, and 500 CFU per 25 g of homogenized egg multiplied
to approximately 106, 107, 108,
108, and 109 CFU/ml, respectively. For
detection of 500 CFU/25 g, a distinct circular pattern was not
observed. Due to the high bacterial concentration after incubation, it
is believed that the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) antigen saturated the
strip, causing complete coloration.
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.1.459-461.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Application of Rapid Dot Blot Immunoassay for
Detection of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in
Eggs, Poultry, and Other Foods
and
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

View larger version (102K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
Detection of serovar Enteritidis in artificially
inoculated eggs by the dot blot immunoassay. Values are the initial
inocula (CFU) per 25 g of egg.
Contamination by transshell transmission frequently involves a mixed
infection dominated by gram-negative bacteria (5). In
order to assess the ability of the assay to detect serovar Enteritidis
among a mixed population of bacteria, six species were selected.
S. enterica serovar Heidelberg has been frequently isolated
from poultry and egg shells (3, 16, 23, 29), while
Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris,
Citrobacter freundii (ATCC 8090), Alcanigenes
faecalis, and Pseudomonas fluorescens are common
spoilage organisms associated with eggs (5). Samples were
inoculated with 33, 50, 67, 100, or 133 CFU of each bacterial species
per ml. When all six bacterial species at these inoculum levels were
combined with 2 CFU of serovar Enteritidis, the ratios of serovar
Enteritidis to competing bacteria were 1 to 100, 1 to 150, 1 to 200, 1 to 300, and 1 to 400. After 20 h of incubation at 37°C, serovar
Enteritidis was detected in all samples (Fig. 2).
|
Eggs contain an adequate amount of nutrients to support the growth of serovar Enteritidis (2). Although antimicrobial agents such as conalbumen and lysozyme are present in the albumen, both are neutralized when the yolk and white are homogenized, thus allowing microbial growth (7, 12). However, Cudjoe and coworkers (8) found that yolk-albumen mixtures still had inhibitory effects on the growth of bacteria. Gast and Holt (14) also suggested that the ability of serovar Enteritidis to grow rapidly in liquid whole eggs is a characteristic of various strains. This could explain why serovar Enteritidis is able to rapidly multiply in homogenized eggs despite the inhibitory effects. This could also explain why serovar Enteritidis was able to survive and proliferate in the presence of competing bacteria. Dolman and Board (10) also reported that serovar Enteritidis phage type 4 was able to outcompete other gram-negative bacteria at incubation temperatures near 37°C.
Since the number of Salmonella-positive eggs laid by infected hens is small, with small numbers of serovar Enteritidis present, detection methods must be highly sensitive. Gast (13) pooled the contents of eggs, which permits a statistically meaningful sample size; however, some form of preenrichment must be employed. Incubation of 1, 5, or 10 CFU of serovar Enteritidis per 500 g of homogenized egg supplemented with ferrous sulfate for 20 h at 37°C allowed CFU to multiply to detectable levels (results not shown). Ferrous sulfate has been found to promote the growth of Salmonella in egg contents due to the limited availability of iron when eggs are pooled (15). When egg pools were inoculated with competing bacterial species and incubated for 24 h at 37°C, serovar Enteritidis was detected when outcompeted 1:300 (results not shown).
Detection in poultry, ice cream, skim milk powder, and poultry feed was conducted by direct enrichment in homogenized egg followed by immunoassay. Incubation of 1, 5, or 10 CFU for 24 h at 37°C was sufficient for detection of serovar Enteritidis (results not shown).
This assay employed the use of a monoclonal antibody (ATCC HB-11891)
specific to the LPS O-9 (factor 9) antigen of serovar Enteritidis.
Factor 9 is part of the D1 Salmonella O antigen
and is composed of two monosaccharides, tyvelose and mannose. The tyvelose residue is a side sugar attached to the trisaccharide backbone
through
1,3 linkage. This particular sugar residue and linkage,
specific to D1 Salmonella, is believed to play a
significant role in the specificity of the antibody (20).
One of the other important features of the immunoassay is based on the distribution of LPS in the gelled egg matrix formed upon heating. Through the addition of sodium cholate and the application of heat, the LPS antigen of serovar Enteritidis was released from the bacterial membrane. Through diffusional forces, the antigen was able to move through the porous egg sample and onto the solid support for detection. Other detergents have been used for extraction of LPS antigens (4); however, Wang and coworkers (30) found that a 15% sodium cholate solution was the most efficient.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by a grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
We thank H. Lior, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Ottawa, Canada, for supplying the various phage types of serovar Enteritidis and the Department of Microbiology, University of Manitoba, for supplying serovar Heidelberg, P. vulgaris, P. fluorescens, and A. faecalis.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Present address: Forbes Medi-Tech Inc., Suite 200, 750 West Pender St., Vancouver, BC, V6C 2T8, Canada. Phone: (604) 689-5899. Fax: (604) 689-7641. E-mail: jzawistowski{at}forbesmedi.com.
Present address: Department of Food Science, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th ed., p. 55-94. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Va. |
| 2. | Baker, R. C. 1990. Survival of Salmonella enteritidis on and in shelled eggs, liquid eggs, and cooked egg products. Dairy Food Environ. San. 10:273-275. |
| 3. | Barnhart, H. M., D. W. Dreesen, R. Bastien, and O. C. Pancorbo. 1991. Prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and other serovars in ovaries of layer hens at time of slaughter. J. Food Prot. 54:488-491. |
| 4. | Blais, B. W., and H. Yamazaki. 1990. Use of detergents in the preparation of Salmonella samples for enzyme immunoassay on polymyxin-coated polyester cloth. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 11:329-336[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 5. | Board, R. G. 1966. Review article: the course of microbial infection of the hen's egg. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 29:319-341[Medline]. |
| 6. | Brigmon, R. L., S. G. Zam, and H. R. Wilson. 1995. Detection of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs and chicken with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Poult. Sci. 74:1232-1236[Medline]. |
| 7. | Brooks, J. 1960. Mechanism of the multiplication of Pseudomonas in the hen's egg. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 23:499-509. |
| 8. | Cudjoe, K. S., R. Krona, B. Grøn, and E. Olsen. 1994. Use of ferrous sulphate and immunomagnetic separation to recover Salmonella enteritidis from raw eggs. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 23:149-158[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 9. | Cudjoe, K. S., R. Krona, and E. Olsen. 1994. IMS: a new selective enrichment technique for detection of Salmonella in foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 23:159-165[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 10. | Dolman, J., and R. G. Board. 1992. The influence of temperature on the behavior of mixed bacterial contamination of the shell membrane on the hen's egg. Epidemiol. Infect. 108:115-121[Medline]. |
| 11. | Entis, P. 1996. Validation of the ISO-GRID 2-day rapid screening method for detection of Salmonella spp. in egg products. J. Food Prot. 59:555-558. |
| 12. | Galyean, R. D., and O. J. Cotterill. 1972. Yolk inhibition of lysozyme activity in egg white. Poult. Sci. 51:1346-1353. |
| 13. | Gast, R. K. 1993. Detection of Salmonella enteritidis in experimentally infected laying hens by culturing pools of egg contents. Poult. Sci. 72:267-274[Medline]. |
| 14. | Gast, R. K., and P. S. Holt. 1995. Differences in the multiplication of Salmonella enteritidis strains in liquid whole egg: implications for detecting contaminated eggs from commercial laying flocks. Poult. Sci. 74:893-897[Medline]. |
| 15. | Gast, R. K., and P. S. Holt. 1995. Iron supplementation to enhance the recovery of Salmonella enteritidis from pools of egg contents. J. Food Sci. 58:268-272. |
| 16. | Jones, F. T., D. V. Rives, and J. B. Carey. 1995. Salmonella contamination in commercial eggs and an egg production facility. Poult. Sci. 74:753-757[Medline]. |
| 17. | Keller, L. H., C. E. Benson, V. Garcia, E. Nocks, P. Battenfelder, and R. J. Eckroade. 1995. Monoclonal antibody-based detection system for Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis. 37:501-507[CrossRef]. |
| 18. | Lee, H. A., G. M. Wyatt, S. Bramham, and M. R. A. Morgan. 1989. Rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs. Food Agric. Immunol. 1:89-99. |
| 19. | Malkova, M., P. Rauch, G. M. Wyatt, and M. R. A. Morgan. 1998. Combined immunomagnetic separation and detection of Salmonella enteritidis in food samples. Food Agric. Immunol. 10:271-280. |
| 20. | Masi, A., and J. Zawistowski. 1995. Detection of live and heat-treated Salmonella enteritidis by a D1-serospecific anti-LPS O-9 monoclonal antibody. Food Agric. Immunol. 7:351-363. |
| 21. | McElroy, A. P., N. D. Cohen, and B. M. Hargis. 1996. Evaluation of the polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Salmonella enteritidis in experimentally inoculated eggs and eggs from experimentally challenged hens. J. Food Prot. 59:1273-1278. |
| 22. | McElroy, A. P., N. D. Cohen, and B. M. Hargis. 1995. Evaluation of centrifugation method for the detection of Salmonella enteritidis in experimentally contaminated chicken eggs. J. Food Prot. 58:931-933. |
| 23. | Poppe, C., R. J. Irwin, C. M. Forsberg, R. C. Clarke, and J. Oggel. 1991. The prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis and other Salmonella spp. among Canadian registered commercial layer flocks. Epidemiol. Infect. 106:259-270[Medline]. |
| 24. | Rijpens, N., L. Herman, F. Vereecken, G. Jannes, J. Smedt, and L. Zutter. 1999. Rapid detection of stressed Salmonella spp. in dairy and egg products using immunomagnetic separation and PCR. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 46:37-44[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 25. | Soumet, C., G. Ermel, N. Rose, V. Rose, P. Drouin, G. Salvat, and P. Colin. 1999. Identification by a multiplex PCR-based assay of Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis strains from environmental swabs of poultry houses. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 29:1-6[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 26. | Soumet, C., G. Ermel, N. Rose, V. Rose, P. Drouin, G. Salvat, and P. Colin. 1999. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous identification of Salmonella sp., Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium from environmental swabs of poultry houses. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 28:113-117[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 27. | Thorns, C. J., I. M. McLaren, and M. G. Sojka. 1994. The use of latex particle agglutination to specifically detect Salmonella enteritidis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 21:47-53[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 28. | Van der Zee, H. 1994. Conventional methods for the detection and isolation of Salmonella enteritidis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 21:41-46[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 29. | Waltman, W. D., A. M. Horne, C. Pirkle, and D. C. Johnson. 1992. Prevalence of Salmonella enteritidis in spent hens. Avian Dis. 36:251-255[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 30. | Wang, H., B. W. Blais, and H. Yamazaki. 1995. Rapid and economical detection of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs by the polymyxin-cloth enzyme immunoassay. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 24:397-406[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 31. |
Woodward, M. J., and S. E. S. Kirwan.
1996.
Detection of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs by the polymerase chain reaction.
Vet. Rec.
138:411-413 |
| 32. | Woo-Yong, K., H. Hyun-Bang, C. Jung-Seuk, and H. Kim-Bong. 1997. Development of rapid and specific methods for detection of Salmonella species using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods. J. Vet. Sci. 39:66-75. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»