|Hinton, Jr, Arthur|
Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/17/2004
Publication Date: 3/26/2004
Citation: Sanders, S.Q., Hinton Jr, A., Frank, J.F., Arnold, J.W. 2004. Evaluation of fatty acid versus substrate utilization for microbial identification of bacterial isolates associated with fresh poultry [abstract]. Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences Conference Proceedings Meeting Abstract. Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: Twenty-five poultry bacterial isolates were identified using the MIDI Sherlock Microbial Identification System (MIS) and the Biolog System. MIDI Sherlock MIS identifies bacteria, yeasts, and molds based on their cellular fatty acid profile, while Biolog identifies bacteria based on their ability to utilize various substrates. Bacteria isolated from poultry carcasses and rubber fingers of a mechanical poultry defeathering machine and bacteria obtained from American Tissue Culture Collection (ATCC) were used. Frozen cultures were thawed, transferred to tryptic soy broth, incubated for 18-20h at 30 or 37 C. Fresh cultures were identified according manufacturer's instructions. Out of 25 bacterial isolates the systems agreed on the identification of 6 isolates (Chryseobacterium indologenes, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Kocuria kristinea, and Enterococcus faecalis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae ss pneumoniae). Biolog identified 15 out of 25 poultry bacterial isolates which included both Gram positive and Gram negative enteric and non-enteric bacteria. Ninety percent (9 out of 10) of the Gram positive bacteria were identified as opposed to 53 percent (8 out 15) of the Gram negative bacteria by this system. The Sherlock MIDI MIS identified all the cultures. However 46 percent (7 out 15) of the Gram negative bacteria were enteric bacteria, and the Sherlock MIDI MIS has limitations in identifying bacteria belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family. Therefore, identification of these by the MIDI MIS may not be accurate and require further confirmation tests to validate identification. Both assays demonstrated advantages and disadvantages unique to each system for identifying poultry bacterial isolates. Further research involving ATCC isolates and isolates identified from other sources may be conducted in the future.