Cargando…

A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Enterobacterales Isolates from Fish and Prawns

Enterobacterales is a prevalent order, which inhabits a variety of environments including food. Due to the high similarities between pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, their identification might be difficult and laborious, and therefore there is a need for rapid and precise identification. The a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zakrzewski, Arkadiusz Józef, Zarzecka, Urszula, Chajęcka-Wierzchowska, Wioleta, Zadernowska, Anna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9032566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35456084
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11040410
Descripción
Sumario:Enterobacterales is a prevalent order, which inhabits a variety of environments including food. Due to the high similarities between pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, their identification might be difficult and laborious, and therefore there is a need for rapid and precise identification. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the available methods of identifying order Enterobacterales strains isolated from fresh fish and shrimps (n = 62). The following methods were used in this study: biochemical, sequencing and identification using the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). For this purpose, biochemical identification was performed with the use of the EnteroTest 24N set, while the identification using the MALDI-TOF MS technology was operated on VITEK(®) MS. Results were compared with identification made by 16S rRNA sequencing. The results of the study showed that conventional identification methods might provide a false result. Identification by VITEK(®) MS to the species level was correct at 70.97%, and the accuracy of EnteroTest 24N identification did not exceed 50.0%. The genus identification reached 90.32% for the MALDI-TOF technique, while for EnteroTest 24N it was nearly 70.0%. Due to errors in identification, especially of pathogenic organisms, the use of each of these methods should be confirmed by another method, preferably sequencing.