LAMP和荧光定量PCR检测食品中致病微生物的比较研究  

Comparison between loop-mediated isothermal amplification and fluorescence quantitative PCR in detection of food pathogenic microorganisms

作　　者：曾婷[1] 谢逸欣[1] 马丽[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军广州军区疾病预防控制中心,广东广州510507

出　　处：《临床军医杂志》2013年第3期304-306,共3页Clinical Journal of Medical Officers

摘　　要：目的比较环介导等温扩增(LAMP)和荧光定量PCR技术对沙门菌、大肠埃希菌和金黄色葡萄球菌的检测效果。方法对2株沙门菌、2株大肠埃希菌和3株金黄色葡萄球菌分别采用LAMP及荧光定量PCR进行检测,比较两种方法的检测结果。结果两种方法均展示很好的检测效果,在对牛奶和污水的检测中,两者的检测率相同,在对虾的检测中,荧光定量PCR相对于LAMP表现更高检测率,对沙门菌和大肠埃希菌的检测率,两法差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),对金黄色葡萄球菌的检测率,两法差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论荧光定量PCR和LAMP对食品致病菌的检测都具有较高的敏感度。Objective To compare the detective effectiveness between loop-mediated isothermal amplification （LAMP） and fluores- cent quantitative PCR （FQ-PCR） techniques for commonly pathogenic bacteria, i.e. salmonella, E. coli and staphylococcus au- reus. Methods both LAMP and FQ-PCR were used in the detection of 2 strains of salmonella, 2 strains of E. coli and 3 strains of staphylococcus, and the outcomes were compared. Results Both the two methods presented good detecting outcomes. The detec- tion rates of them were the same in the detection of milk and polluted water, while that of FQ-PCR were higher than that of LAMP in the detection of Prawn. There ：was not statistical difference in the detection rates of salmonella and E. eoli between the two methods （ P 〉 0.05 ）, while that of staphylococcus aureus was statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion Both LAMP and FQ-PCR have high sensitivities in pathogenic bacterium detection for food, and are worth generalizing in causative organism detection.

关 键 词：环介导等温扩增技术 荧光定量PCR技术 食品安全 

分 类 号：R446.5[医药卫生—诊断学]