Role of subtyping in detecting Salmonella cross contamination in the laboratory.
dc.contributor.author | De Lappe, Niall | |
dc.contributor.author | Connor, Jean O | |
dc.contributor.author | Doran, Geraldine | |
dc.contributor.author | Devane, Genevieve | |
dc.contributor.author | Cormican, Martin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-03-30T14:18:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-03-30T14:18:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Role of subtyping in detecting Salmonella cross contamination in the laboratory. 2009, 9:155 BMC Microbiol. | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1471-2180 | |
dc.identifier.pmid | 19646244 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/1471-2180-9-155 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10147/95263 | |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: With the exception of M. tuberculosis, little has been published on the problems of cross-contamination in bacteriology laboratories. We performed a retrospective analysis of subtyping data from the National Salmonella Reference Laboratory (Ireland) from 2000-2007 to identify likely incidents of laboratory cross contamination. METHODS: Serotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on all Salmonella isolates received in the NSRL. Phage typing was performed on all S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis isolates while multi-locus variance analysis (MLVA) was performed on selected S. Typhimurium isolates. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using the PulseNet standard protocol was performed on selected isolates of various serovars. RESULTS: Twenty-three incidents involving fifty-six isolates were identified as likely to represent cross contamination. The probable sources of contamination identified were the laboratory positive control isolate (n = 13), other test isolates (n = 9) or proficiency test samples (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The scale of laboratory cross-contamination in bacteriology is most likely under recognized. Testing laboratories should be aware of the potential for cross-contamination, regularly review protocols to minimize its occurrence and consider it as a possibility when unexpected results are obtained. | |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.subject.mesh | Bacteriophage Typing | |
dc.subject.mesh | Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field | |
dc.subject.mesh | Equipment Contamination | |
dc.subject.mesh | Food Contamination | |
dc.subject.mesh | Food Microbiology | |
dc.subject.mesh | Laboratories | |
dc.subject.mesh | Microbial Sensitivity Tests | |
dc.subject.mesh | Salmonella | |
dc.subject.mesh | Serotyping | |
dc.title | Role of subtyping in detecting Salmonella cross contamination in the laboratory. | en |
dc.contributor.department | National Salmonella Reference Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland. niall.delappe@hse.ie | en |
dc.identifier.journal | BMC microbiology | en |
refterms.dateFOA | 2018-09-03T10:40:17Z | |
html.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: With the exception of M. tuberculosis, little has been published on the problems of cross-contamination in bacteriology laboratories. We performed a retrospective analysis of subtyping data from the National Salmonella Reference Laboratory (Ireland) from 2000-2007 to identify likely incidents of laboratory cross contamination. METHODS: Serotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on all Salmonella isolates received in the NSRL. Phage typing was performed on all S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis isolates while multi-locus variance analysis (MLVA) was performed on selected S. Typhimurium isolates. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using the PulseNet standard protocol was performed on selected isolates of various serovars. RESULTS: Twenty-three incidents involving fifty-six isolates were identified as likely to represent cross contamination. The probable sources of contamination identified were the laboratory positive control isolate (n = 13), other test isolates (n = 9) or proficiency test samples (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The scale of laboratory cross-contamination in bacteriology is most likely under recognized. Testing laboratories should be aware of the potential for cross-contamination, regularly review protocols to minimize its occurrence and consider it as a possibility when unexpected results are obtained. |