Culture-Independent Rapid Detection Methods for Bacterial Pathogens and Toxins in Food Matrices

231Citations
Citations of this article
315Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Rapid detection of bacterial pathogens and toxins in foods is necessary to provide real-time results to mitigate foodborne illness outbreaks. Cultural enrichment methods, although the most widely used, are time-consuming and therefore inadequate for rapid pathogen detection from food samples. The development of novel "rapid" detection methods has decreased detection time dramatically. This review presents an overview of detection methods for various foodborne pathogens, including Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica, and shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, and bacterial toxins in food matrices, with emphasis on those methods which do not require cultural enrichment. Discussed methods include nucleic acid-, immunological-, and biosensor-based techniques. A summary of each type of detection method is given, including referenced methods from the literature. Since these discussed methods do not require cultural enrichment, there is a higher probability of interference from the food matrices. Therefore, the review also discusses the potential interference of food components on detection methods and addresses preprocessing strategies to overcome matrix associated inhibition and to concentrate low quantities of pathogens and toxins in food. Development of rapid and sensitive detection technologies advances and ensures public health safety and security.

References Powered by Scopus

Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, Y., & Salazar, J. K. (2016). Culture-Independent Rapid Detection Methods for Bacterial Pathogens and Toxins in Food Matrices. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 15(1), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12175

Readers over time

‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 112

63%

Researcher 37

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 19

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 10

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58

43%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 34

25%

Engineering 22

16%

Chemistry 21

16%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0