阪崎肠杆菌LAMP、PCR与传统检测方法的比较  

Comparison of LAMP,PCR and traditional method for detection on enterobacter sakazakii

作　　者：徐晓可[1] 吴清平[1] 张淑红[1] 张菊梅[1] 郭伟鹏[1] 吴秀华[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省华南应用微生物重点实验室-省部共建国家重点实验室培育基地广东省菌种保藏与应用重点实验室广东省微生物应用新技术公共实验室广东省微生物研究所,广州510070

出　　处：《现代预防医学》2013年第9期1715-1717,共3页Modern Preventive Medicine

基　　金：广东省科技计划项目(2008A030203012);广东省科学院青年科学研究基金(qnjj20099)

摘　　要：目的参加能力验证活动,评价实验室检测奶粉中阪崎肠杆菌的技术水平和能力,比较不同方法的检测效果。方法参考GB/T 4789.40-2010《食品微生物学检验-阪崎肠杆菌检验》和FDA/CFSAN:2002阪崎肠杆菌检测方法,对所提供的3份能力验证样品进行传统方法检测,同时采用LAMP方法和PCR方法进行验证。结果 3种检测方法结果相吻合,均显示3份样品中有2份检出阪崎肠杆菌(编号分别为2#和3#),1份未检出(编号为1#)。3种方法相比,LAMP方法检测时间最短,仅需8h就可以提供检测结果,且操作更简单方便;PCR方法需要12～15h;而传统方法需要3～5d。结论通过参加此次能力验证,提升了实验室检测奶粉中阪崎肠杆菌的能力,通过比较3种方法的检测结果和周期,认为LAMP和PCR方法可以作为实验室传统验证方法的有效补充。OBJECTIVE Through participating proficiency testing activities to evaluate the laboratory detection level and proficiency of enterobacter sakazakii in milk powder,meanwhile,to compare the effect of different detection methods.METHODS Three unknown samples were detected by traditional method according to GB/T 4789.40-2010 and FDA/CFSAN：2002 testing procedures and verified by LAMP and PCR methods.RESULTS Three different detection methods had the same results,two of three unknown milk powder were positive（2#,3#）,and one was negative（1#）.Compared with other two methods,the LAMP method was faster and more convenient,which was 8h,PCR methods was 12-15h,while the traditional method was 3-5d.CONCLUSION This proficiency testing activities improves the laboratory testing proficiency of enterobacter sakazakii in milk powder.In proficiency testing,LAMP and PCR methods may be used as important supplement means.

关 键 词：实验室能力验证 阪崎肠杆菌 LAMP PCR 传统检测方法 

分 类 号：TS201[轻工技术与工程—食品科学]