title: Comparative analysis of cultural isolation and PCR based assay for detection of campylobacter jejuni in food and faecal samples.
abstract: In the present study, the efficacy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based on mapA gene of C. jejuni was tested for detection of Campylobacter jejuni in naturally infected as well as spiked faecal and food samples of human and animal origin. Simultaneously, all the samples were subjected to the cultural isolation of organism and biochemical characterization. The positive samples resulted in the amplification of a DNA fragment of size ~589 bp in PCR assay whereas the absence of such amplicon in DNA extracted from E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella and Staphylococcus confirmed the specificity of the primers. Of randomly collected 143 faecal samples comprising human diarrheic stools (43), cattle diarrheic faeces (48) and poultry faecal swabs (52) only 4, 3 and 8, respectively, could be detected by isolation whereas 6, 3 and 10, respectively, were found positive by PCR. However, among food samples viz. beef (30), milk (35), cheese (30), only one beef sample was detected both by culture as well as PCR. Additionally, PCR was found to be more sensitive for C. jejuni detection in spiked faecal and food samples (96.1% each) as relative to culture isolation which could detect the organism in 86.7% and 80% samples, respectively. The results depicted the superior efficacy of PCR for rapid screening of samples owing to its high sensitivity, specificity and automation potential.
authors.affiliation: Division of Veterinary Public Health, Indian Veterinary Research Institute , Izatnagar, Bareilly-243122 , India.
authors.forename: Harkanwaldeep
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.forename: R S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Rathore
authors.forename: Satparkash
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.forename: Pawanjit Singh
authors.initials: PS
authors.lastname: Cheema
keywords: Campylobacter jejuni; PCR; isolation; spiking
references.citation: Res Microbiol. 2008 Mar;159(2):88-93
references.pmid: 18272350
references.citation: Lett Appl Microbiol. 1999 Dec;29(6):406-10
references.pmid: 10664985
references.citation: J Med Microbiol. 2007 Oct;56(Pt 10):1350-1355
references.pmid: 17893173
references.citation: Med Dosw Mikrobiol. 2008;60(1):59-63
references.pmid: 18634345
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Mar;69(3):1383-90
references.pmid: 12620820
references.citation: J Appl Bacteriol. 1996 Nov;81(5):467-73
references.pmid: 8939024
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2002 Oct;55(10):749-53
references.pmid: 12354800
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 1998 Dec;121(3):547-53
references.pmid: 10030703
references.citation: J Med Microbiol. 2005 Nov;54(Pt 11):1043-1047
references.pmid: 16192435
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Jul;41(7):2980-6
references.pmid: 12843030
references.citation: J Comp Pathol. 1994 Aug;111(2):113-49
references.pmid: 7806700
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2004 Sep 1;95(2):111-8
references.pmid: 15282123
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 2001 Dec;127(3):399-404
references.pmid: 11811871
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Nov;22(5):714-8
references.pmid: 3902875
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 1995 May;20(5):1092-9; quiz 1100-1
references.pmid: 7619982
references.citation: J Biolumin Chemilumin. 1998 Jul-Aug;13(4):189-93
references.pmid: 9743442
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Apr;65(4):1636-43
references.pmid: 10103261