title: Comparison of rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunomagnetic separation methods for detection of Escherichia coli O157 in fecal, hide, carcass, and ground beef samples.
abstract: Rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are approved for detection of Escherichia coil O157 in beef products. However, these kits have also been used in the industry to detect this pathogen on hides or in feces of cattle, although this use has not been validated. The objective of this study was to compare commercially available ELISAs (E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP) with immunomagnetic separation along with selective media to detect E. coli O157 on hides, in feces, and in medium- and low-level-inoculated ground beef and carcasses (simulated by using briskets) samples. Naturally infected hide and fecal samples were subjected to both the immunomagnetic separation method and ELISAs for the detection of E. coli O157. Additionally, E. coli O157 inoculated and noninoculated ground beef and beef briskets were used to simulate meat and carcass samples. When comparing the detection results from the ELISAs (E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP) to the immunomagnetic separation method, poor agreement was observed for fecal samples (kappa = 0.10, 0.02, and 0.03 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively), and fair-to-moderate agreement was observed for hide samples (kappa = 0.30, 0.51, and 0.29 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively). However, there was near-perfect agreement between the immunomagnetic separation method and ELISAs for ground beef (kappa = 1, 1, and 0.80 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively) and brisket (kappa = 1, 1, and 1 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively) samples. Assuming immunomagnetic separation is the best available method, these data suggest that the ELISAs are not useful in detecting E. coli O157 from hide or fecal samples. However, when ELISAs are used on ground beef and beef brisket samples they can be used with a high degree of confidence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, USA.
authors.forename: T W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.forename: T P
authors.initials: TP
authors.lastname: Stephens
authors.forename: G H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Loneragan
authors.forename: M F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Brashears
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle / Q000382:microbiology; D015169:Colony Count, Microbial; D003470:Culture Media / Q000737:chemistry; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D019453:Escherichia coli O157 / Q000276:immunology / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D005506:Food Contamination / Q000032:analysis*; D005516:Food Microbiology; D018189:Immunomagnetic Separation / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D008460:Meat / Q000382:microbiology*; D008461:Meat Products / Q000382:microbiology; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D003470:Culture Media