Advantages and Limitations of Potential Methods for the Analysis of Bacteria in Milk: a Review

Overview

Journal J Food Sci Technol

Specialty Nutritional Sciences

Date 2016 Jan 21

PMID 26787931

Citations 12

Authors

Frederick Tawi Tabit

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Contamination concerns in the dairy industry are motivated by outbreaks of disease in humans and the inability of thermal processes to eliminate bacteria completely in processed products. HACCP principles are an important tool used in the food industry to identify and control potential food safety hazards in order to meet customer demands and regulatory requirements. Milk testing is of importance to the milk industry regarding quality assurance and monitoring of processed products by researchers, manufacturers and regulatory agencies. Due to the availability of numerous methods used for analysing the microbial quality of milk in literature and differences in priorities of stakeholders, it is sometimes confusing to choose an appropriate method for a particular analysis. The objective of this paper is to review the advantages and disadvantages of selected techniques that can be used in the analysis of bacteria in milk. SSC, HRMA, REP, and RAPD are the top four techniques which are quick and cost-effective and possess adequate discriminatory power for the detection and profiling of bacteria. The following conclusions were arrived at during this review: HRMA, REP and RFLP are the techniques with the most reproducible results, and the techniques with the most discriminatory power are AFLP, PFGE and Raman Spectroscopy.

Citing Articles

Genetic marker: a genome mapping tool to decode genetic diversity of livestock animals.

Panchariya D, Dutta P, Ananya , Mishra A, Chawade A, Nayee N Front Genet. 2024; 15:1463474.

PMID: 39483851 PMC: 11524813. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1463474.

Isolation and characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae inducing mass mortalities in cultured Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) with trials for disease control using zinc oxide nanoparticles and ethanolic leaf extracts of some medicinal plants.

Abdallah E, Metwally W, Bayoumi S, Abdel Rahman M, Mahmoud M BMC Vet Res. 2024; 20(1):468.

PMID: 39402574 PMC: 11475875. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-024-04298-z.

A Comprehensive Review of Identification Methods for Pathogenic Yeasts: Challenges and Approaches.

Morovati H, Kord M, Ahmadikia K, Eslami S, Hemmatzadeh M, Kurdestani K Adv Biomed Res. 2023; 12:187.

PMID: 37694259 PMC: 10492613. DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_375_22.

Illuminating Bacterial Contamination in Water Sources: The Power of Fluorescence-Based Methods.

Modi K, Modi K, Bhatt K, Patel N, Parikh J, Mohan B J Fluoresc. 2023; 34(1):139-147.

PMID: 37310589 DOI: 10.1007/s10895-023-03297-x.

Association of eNOS and MCP-1 Genetic Variants with Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy Susceptibility: A Case-Control and Meta-Analysis Study.

Raina P, Sikka R, Gupta H, Matharoo K, Bali S, Singh V Biochem Genet. 2021; 59(4):966-996.

PMID: 33609191 PMC: 7896546. DOI: 10.1007/s10528-021-10041-2.

References

Guillaume-Gentil O, Scheldeman P, Marugg J, Herman L, Joosten H, Heyndrickx M . Genetic heterogeneity in Bacillus sporothermodurans as demonstrated by ribotyping and repetitive extragenic palindromic-PCR fingerprinting. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002; 68(9):4216-24. PMC: 124129. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.9.4216-4224.2002. View

Thomsen N, Ali R, Ahmed J, Arkell R . High resolution melt analysis (HRMA); a viable alternative to agarose gel electrophoresis for mouse genotyping. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e45252. PMC: 3446988. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045252. View

Verdier-Metz I, Michel V, Delbes C, Montel M . Do milking practices influence the bacterial diversity of raw milk?. Food Microbiol. 2009; 26(3):305-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2008.12.005. View

Cawthorn D, Witthuhn R . Selective PCR detection of viable Enterobacter sakazakii cells utilizing propidium monoazide or ethidium bromide monoazide. J Appl Microbiol. 2008; 105(4):1178-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03851.x. View

Nielsen E, Engberg J, Fussing V, Petersen L, Brogren C, On S . Evaluation of phenotypic and genotypic methods for subtyping Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans, poultry, and cattle. J Clin Microbiol. 2000; 38(10):3800-10. PMC: 87479. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.38.10.3800-3810.2000. View

Espy M, Uhl J, Sloan L, Buckwalter S, Jones M, Vetter E . Real-time PCR in clinical microbiology: applications for routine laboratory testing. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006; 19(1):165-256. PMC: 1360278. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.19.1.165-256.2006. View

Bouvier T, A Del Giorgio P . Factors influencing the detection of bacterial cells using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): A quantitative review of published reports. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009; 44(1):3-15. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-6496(02)00461-0. View

Smith S, Cantet F, Angelini F, Marais A, Megraud F, Bayerdoffer E . Discriminatory power of RAPD, PCR-RFLP and southern blot analyses of ureCD or ureA gene probes on Helicobacter pylori isolates. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2002; 57(5-6):516-21. DOI: 10.1515/znc-2002-5-620. View

Rossetti L, Giraffa G . Rapid identification of dairy lactic acid bacteria by M13-generated, RAPD-PCR fingerprint databases. J Microbiol Methods. 2005; 63(2):135-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.03.001. View

10.

Vossen R, Aten E, Roos A, den Dunnen J . High-resolution melting analysis (HRMA): more than just sequence variant screening. Hum Mutat. 2009; 30(6):860-6. DOI: 10.1002/humu.21019. View

11.

Ota M, Asamura H, Oki T, Sada M . Restriction enzyme analysis of PCR products. Methods Mol Biol. 2009; 578:405-14. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-411-1_25. View

12.

Tardy F, Gaurivaud P, Tricot A, Maigre L, Poumarat F . Epidemiological surveillance of mycoplasmas belonging to the 'Mycoplasma mycoides' cluster: is DGGE fingerprinting of 16S rRNA genes suitable?. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008; 48(2):210-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02509.x. View

13.

Hadrys H, Balick M, Schierwater B . Applications of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in molecular ecology. Mol Ecol. 1992; 1(1):55-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1992.tb00155.x. View

14.

Di Cagno R, Minervini G, Sgarbi E, Lazzi C, Bernini V, Neviani E . Comparison of phenotypic (Biolog System) and genotypic (random amplified polymorphic DNA-polymerase chain reaction, RAPD-PCR, and amplified fragment length polymorphism, AFLP) methods for typing Lactobacillus plantarum isolates from raw vegetables.... Int J Food Microbiol. 2010; 143(3):246-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.08.018. View

15.

Lazzi C, Bove C, Sgarbi E, Gatti M, Monica G, La Gioia F . Application of AFLP fingerprint analysis for studying the biodiversity of Streptococcus thermophilus. J Microbiol Methods. 2009; 79(1):48-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.07.021. View

16.

Oliver S, Jayarao B, Almeida R . Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm environment: food safety and public health implications. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2005; 2(2):115-29. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2005.2.115. View

17.

Te Giffel M, Wagendorp A, Herrewegh A, Driehuis F . Bacterial spores in silage and raw milk. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002; 81(1-4):625-30. DOI: 10.1023/a:1020578110353. View

18.

Anderson P, Hume M, Byrd J, Hernandez C, Stevens S, Stringfellow K . Evaluation of repetitive extragenic palindromic-polymerase chain reaction and denatured gradient gel electrophoresis in identifying Salmonella serotypes isolated from processed turkeys. Poult Sci. 2010; 89(6):1293-300. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2009-00390. View

19.

Hahm B, Maldonado Y, Schreiber E, Bhunia A, Nakatsu C . Subtyping of foodborne and environmental isolates of Escherichia coli by multiplex-PCR, rep-PCR, PFGE, ribotyping and AFLP. J Microbiol Methods. 2003; 53(3):387-99. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-7012(02)00259-2. View

20.

Yu J, Sun Z, Liu W, Zhang J, Sun T, Bao Q . Rapid identification of lactic acid bacteria isolated from home-made fermented milk in Tibet. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2009; 55(3):181-90. DOI: 10.2323/jgam.55.181. View