Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Screening of fruit products for norovirus and the difficulty of interpreting positive PCR results

Ambroos Stals, Leen Baert UGent, Vicky Jasson UGent, Els Van Coillie and Mieke Uyttendaele UGent (2011) JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION. 74(3). p.425-431
abstract
Despite recent norovirus (NoV) outbreaks related to consumption of fruit products, little is known regarding the NoV load on these foods. Therefore, 75 fruit products were screened for NoV presence by using an evaluated in-house NoV detection methodology consisting of a NoV extraction method and a reverse transcription quantitative PCR assay. Additionally, the fruit samples were screened for bacterial pathogens and bacterial hygiene indicators. Results of the NoV screening showed that 18 of 75 samples tested positive for GI and/or GII NoV despite a good bacteriological quality. The recovery of murine norovirus 1 virus particles acting as process control was successful in 31 of 75 samples with a mean recovery efficiency of 11.32% +/- 6.08%. The level of detected NoV genomic copies ranged between 2.5 and 5.0 log per 10 g. NoV GI and/or GII were found in 4 of 10, 7 of 30, 6 of 20, and I of 15 of the tested raspberries, cherry tomatoes, strawberries, and fruit salad samples, respectively. However, confirmation of the positive quantitative PCR results by sequencing genotyping regions in the NoV genome was not possible. Due to the nature of the method used (reverse transcription quantitative PCR) for detection of genomic material, no differentiation was possible between infectious and noninfectious viral particles. No NoV outbreaks related to the tested fruit product types were reported during the screening period, which hampers a conclusion as to whether these unexpected high numbers of NoV-positive results should be perceived as a public health threat. These results, however, may indicate a prior NoV contamination of the tested food samples throughout the fresh produce chain.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
ENTERIC VIRUSES, FRESH PRODUCE, UNITED-STATES, HEPATITIS-A, OUTBREAKS, GASTROENTERITIS, CONSUMPTION, FOODS, TIME RT-PCR, REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION-PCR
journal title
JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
J. Food Prot.
volume
74
issue
3
pages
425 - 431
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000288313200011
JCR category
FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
JCR impact factor
1.937 (2011)
JCR rank
35/128 (2011)
JCR quartile
2 (2011)
ISSN
0362-028X
DOI
10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-209
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1850768
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1850768
date created
2011-07-01 10:53:00
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:42:17
@article{1850768,
  abstract     = {Despite recent norovirus (NoV) outbreaks related to consumption of fruit products, little is known regarding the NoV load on these foods. Therefore, 75 fruit products were screened for NoV presence by using an evaluated in-house NoV detection methodology consisting of a NoV extraction method and a reverse transcription quantitative PCR assay. Additionally, the fruit samples were screened for bacterial pathogens and bacterial hygiene indicators. Results of the NoV screening showed that 18 of 75 samples tested positive for GI and/or GII NoV despite a good bacteriological quality. The recovery of murine norovirus 1 virus particles acting as process control was successful in 31 of 75 samples with a mean recovery efficiency of 11.32\% +/- 6.08\%. The level of detected NoV genomic copies ranged between 2.5 and 5.0 log per 10 g. NoV GI and/or GII were found in 4 of 10, 7 of 30, 6 of 20, and I of 15 of the tested raspberries, cherry tomatoes, strawberries, and fruit salad samples, respectively. However, confirmation of the positive quantitative PCR results by sequencing genotyping regions in the NoV genome was not possible. Due to the nature of the method used (reverse transcription quantitative PCR) for detection of genomic material, no differentiation was possible between infectious and noninfectious viral particles. No NoV outbreaks related to the tested fruit product types were reported during the screening period, which hampers a conclusion as to whether these unexpected high numbers of NoV-positive results should be perceived as a public health threat. These results, however, may indicate a prior NoV contamination of the tested food samples throughout the fresh produce chain.},
  author       = {Stals, Ambroos and Baert, Leen and Jasson, Vicky and Van Coillie, Els and Uyttendaele, Mieke},
  issn         = {0362-028X},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION},
  keyword      = {ENTERIC VIRUSES,FRESH PRODUCE,UNITED-STATES,HEPATITIS-A,OUTBREAKS,GASTROENTERITIS,CONSUMPTION,FOODS,TIME RT-PCR,REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION-PCR},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {425--431},
  title        = {Screening of fruit products for norovirus and the difficulty of interpreting positive PCR results},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-209},
  volume       = {74},
  year         = {2011},
}

Chicago
Stals, Ambroos, Leen Baert, Vicky Jasson, Els Van Coillie, and Mieke Uyttendaele. 2011. “Screening of Fruit Products for Norovirus and the Difficulty of Interpreting Positive PCR Results.” Journal of Food Protection 74 (3): 425–431.
APA
Stals, A., Baert, L., Jasson, V., Van Coillie, E., & Uyttendaele, M. (2011). Screening of fruit products for norovirus and the difficulty of interpreting positive PCR results. JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION, 74(3), 425–431.
Vancouver
1.
Stals A, Baert L, Jasson V, Van Coillie E, Uyttendaele M. Screening of fruit products for norovirus and the difficulty of interpreting positive PCR results. JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION. 2011;74(3):425–31.
MLA
Stals, Ambroos, Leen Baert, Vicky Jasson, et al. “Screening of Fruit Products for Norovirus and the Difficulty of Interpreting Positive PCR Results.” JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION 74.3 (2011): 425–431. Print.