+1 (202) 780-3397
Perspective - Journal of Food Nutrition and Health (2024) Volume 7, Issue 2
Diagnostic Approaches of Foodborne Pathogens
Ruige Yang *
Department of Nutrition, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- *Corresponding Author:
- Ruige Yang
Department of Nutrition
University of Heidelberg
Heidelberg, Germany
E-mail: Ruigeyang35@uni-heidelberg.de
Received: 27-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. AAJFNH-24-135343; Editor assigned: 30-Mar-2024, PreQC No. AAJFNH-24-135343(PQ); Reviewed:14-Apr-2024, QC No. AAJFNH-24-135343; Revised:22-Apr-2024, Manuscript No. AAJFNH-24-135343(R); Published: 29-Apr-2023, DOI:10.35841/ aajfnh-7.2.197
Citation: Yang R. Diagnostic Approaches of Foodborne Pathogens. J Food Nutr Health. 2024;7(2):197
Introduction
Foodborne pathogens pose a significant threat to public health worldwide, causing numerous outbreaks and illnesses each year. Prompt and accurate detection of these pathogens is crucial to prevent outbreaks, identify contamination sources, and ensure the safety of the food supply chain. Various diagnostic approaches have been developed to address this challenge, ranging from traditional culture-based methods to cutting-edge molecular techniques. In this article, we will explore the different diagnostic approaches used to detect foodborne pathogens and highlight their strengths and limitations [1].
Foodborne pathogens are microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites, that can contaminate food and cause illness when consumed. Common foodborne pathogens include Salmonella, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Listeria, Campylobacter, and norovirus. The consequences of foodborne illnesses can range from mild discomfort to severe illness, hospitalization, and even death. Therefore, the rapid and accurate detection of these pathogens is essential to mitigate the risks associated with contaminated food. Traditional Culture-Based Methods Bacterial Culture: One of the most common approaches for detecting bacterial foodborne pathogens involves culturing the microorganisms from food samples on specific growth media.
This method is highly reliable and has been used for decades. However, it can be time-consuming, taking several days to yield results. Enrichment Culture: Enrichment culture involves incubating food samples in a liquid medium that encourages the growth of specific pathogens. This approach increases the pathogen's concentration, making it easier to detect [2].
It is also time-consuming and may require subsequent steps for identification. PCR is a powerful molecular technique that amplifies DNA sequences specific to foodborne pathogens.
It is highly sensitive and can detect small amounts of pathogens.
Real-time PCR allows for rapid quantification and monitoring of pathogens in real-time.
Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP): LAMP is an isothermal amplification technique that is faster and less complex than PCR.
It is well-suited for on-site or point-of-care testing due to its simplicity.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): NGS technologies enable the sequencing of entire genomes of foodborne pathogens.
This approach provides comprehensive information, allowing for strain characterization and source tracking. It is particularly useful in outbreak investigations [3].
ELISA is a widely used immunological method that detects specific antigens or antibodies in food samples. It is relatively quick and can be adapted for high-throughput screening.
IMS combines immunological recognition with magnetic beads to selectively capture and concentrate pathogens from complex food matrices.
Food samples can be complex and may contain inhibitory substances that interfere with detection methods. Advancements in sample preparation techniques are addressing this issue. Rapid detection is crucial to prevent contaminated products from reaching consumers. Emerging technologies such as biosensors and microfluidics are promising for faster results [4].
Detecting multiple pathogens simultaneously is essential for comprehensive food safety. Multiplex PCR and microarray technologies enable the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens in a single assay.Ensuring both high sensitivity and specificity remains a challenge, particularly in complex food matrices. Ongoing research focuses on improving the accuracy of diagnostic methods [5].
The detection of foodborne pathogens is a critical component of food safety, protecting public health and the integrity of the food supply chain. Traditional culture-based methods, while reliable, can be slow, while molecular and immunological methods offer faster and more sensitive alternatives. Ongoing advancements in technology continue to improve the speed, accuracy, and multiplexing capabilities of diagnostic approaches. As we move forward, a combination of these approaches, along with the integration of emerging technologies, will play a pivotal role in ensuring the rapid and precise detection of foodborne pathogens. This, in turn, will help prevent foodborne illnesses, reduce economic losses, and safeguard the well-being of consumers worldwide. Food safety is a collective responsibility, and the development and adoption of advanced diagnostic methods are essential steps towards achieving this goal [6-10].
References
- Benedict MQ, Knols BG, Bossin HC, et al. Colonisation and mass rearing: learning from others. Malar J. 2009;8(2):S4.
Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross Ref
- Bellini R, Puggioli A, Balestrino F, et al. Exploring protandry and pupal size selection for Aedes albopictus sex separation. Parasites Vectors. 2018;11:650.
- Baust JM, Campbell LH, Harbell JW. Best practices for cryopreserving, thawing, recovering, and assessing cells. In Vitro Cell. Dev Biol Anim. 2017;53:855-71.
Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross Ref
- Batzer DP, Wissinger SA. Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu Rev Entomol. 1996;41:75-100.
- Chitrakar B, Zhang M, Bhandari B. Edible flowers with the common name “marigold”: Their therapeutic values and processing. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2019;89:76-87.
- Purohit SR, Rana SS, Idrishi R, Sharma V, Ghosh P. A review on nutritional, bioactive, toxicological properties and preservation of edible flowers. Future Foods. 2021;4:100078.
Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross Ref
- Benvenuti S, Bortolotti E, Maggini R. Antioxidant power, anthocyanin content and organoleptic performance of edible flowers. Scientia Horticulturae. 2016;199:170-77.
Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross Ref
- Cunningham E. What nutritional contribution do edible flowers make?J Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2015;115(5):856.
- Wu F. Mycotoxin risk assessment for the purpose of setting international regulatory standards Environ. Sci Technol. 2004;38:4049-55.
Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross Ref
- Wanjala G. Microbiological quality and safety of raw and pasteurized milk marketed in and around Nairobi region. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2017;17:11518-532.