1
|
Hu H, Cai L, Shao L, Xu X, Wang H, Zhou G. Characterization and genome analysis of Pseudomonas phages isolated from various sources related to chilled chicken. Food Res Int 2025; 202:115544. [PMID: 39967128 DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.115544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2024] [Revised: 12/11/2024] [Accepted: 12/28/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2025]
Abstract
Pseudomonas stands out as the dominant spoilage bacteria in chilled meat. Bacteriophages are anticipated to emerge as a novel bactericidal preservative, offering a solution to the issue of antibiotic resistance. In this work, the Pseudomonas phages named P1, P9 and P20 were obtained from 84 samples collected from slaughtering environments and 24 chilled chicken products. The three phages displayed high strain specificity and a limited host spectrum. The latent period for all three phages was less than 10 min under the optimal MOI condition (0.0001), while the lysis periods were 60, 90, and 120 min respectively. The tested phages could maintain stable survival within a temperature range of 4 to 40 °C and a pH range of 5 to 11. Combined with morphological and genomic comparison, the three phages belonged to the order Caudovirales, family Podoviridae, subfamily Autographivirinae, and genus T7virus. Their genomes comprised linear dsDNA ranging from 40,000 to 50,000 bp, devoid of genes encoding toxins, virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and lysogen markers. The finding indicated that the three phages were lytic bacteriophages, showing promise as safe bacteriostatic agents for inhibiting Pseudomonas in food.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haijing Hu
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China
| | - Linlin Cai
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China
| | - Liangting Shao
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China
| | - Xinglian Xu
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China.
| | - Huhu Wang
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China; Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, PR China.
| | - Guanghong Zhou
- Key Laboratory of Meat Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Lab of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Meat Production and Processing, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Leone C, Xu X, Mishra A, Thippareddi H, Singh M. Interventions to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter during chilling and post-chilling stages of poultry processing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Poult Sci 2024; 103:103492. [PMID: 38335673 PMCID: PMC10864810 DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.103492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Salmonella and Campylobacter are common bacterial hazards causing foodborne illnesses worldwide. A large proportion of Salmonella and Campylobacter illnesses are attributed to contaminated poultry products that are mishandled or under cooked. Processing interventions such as chilling and post-chill dip are critical to reducing microbial contamination of poultry. A comprehensive search of the literature published between 2000 and 2021 was conducted in the databases Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, and Academic OneFile. Studies were included if they were in English and investigated the effects of interventions against Salmonella and/or Campylobacter on whole carcasses and/or parts during the chilling or post-chill stages of poultry processing. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the "meta" package in the R programming language. Subgroup analyses were assessed according to outcome measure reported, microorganism tested, processing stage assessed, and chemical treatment used. The results included 41 eligible studies. Eighteen studies reported results of 28 separate interventions against Salmonella and 31 reported results of 50 separate interventions against Campylobacter. No significant difference (P> 0.05) was observed when comparing the combined mean difference of all interventions targeting Salmonella to the combined mean difference of all interventions targeting Campylobacter or when comparing chilling times within each pathogen subgroup. For analyses examining antimicrobial additives, peroxyacetic acid (PAA) had the largest reduction against Salmonella population regardless of chilling time (P< 0.05). PAA also had the largest reduction against Campylobacter population and prevalence during primary chilling (P< 0.01). Air chilling showed a lower reduction for Campylobacter than any immersion chilling intervention (P< 0.05). Chilling time and antimicrobial used during poultry processing had varying effects depending on the pathogen and outcome measure investigated (concentration or prevalence). High heterogeneity and low sample numbers in most analyses suggest that more high-quality research that is well-designed and has transparent reporting of methodology and results is needed to corroborate the results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cortney Leone
- Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
| | - Xinran Xu
- Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
| | - Abhinav Mishra
- Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
| | | | - Manpreet Singh
- Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Che S, Susta L, Barbut S. Effects of broiler chilling methods on the occurrence of pale, soft, exudative (PSE) meat and comparison of detection methods for PSE meat using traditional and Nix colorimeters. Poult Sci 2023; 102:102907. [PMID: 37579649 PMCID: PMC10448338 DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2023] [Revised: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/16/2023] Open
Abstract
The aims of this study were to i) estimate the occurrence of pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) meat in modern commercial Ontario broiler flocks, ii) determine the effects of the chilling method (water vs. air) on PSE meat, and iii) investigate a new inexpensive colorimeter (10% of the price of traditional color meters), the Nix Color Sensor, as an objective color measurement of chicken meat. Between June 2019 to March 2020, a total of 17 different broiler flocks were processed. The color of 1,700 boneless skinless Pectoralis major muscles was randomly measured (100/flock), where 255 samples were also measured for pH, water-holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss, and penetration force. In addition, a traditional Minolta colorimeter was used to measure random 95 samples from a single water-chilled flock and subsequently compared the values obtained with the Nix Color Sensor. Strong correlations of L* values (rho = 0.75; P < 0.001), a* values (rho = 0.72; P < 0.001), and b* values (rho = 0.80; P < 0.001) were observed. When an L* value of 43 was used as the cut-off for the Nix, 12.5% of fillets were classified as PSE meat. Statistical differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the air and water-chill methods for L*, pH, and WHC. However, there were no significant differences observed between the 2 methods for cooking loss and penetration force values. The study indicated that PSE meat is still a challenge in Ontario broilers, and that the L*, pH, and WHC of breast meat (all indicate meat quality) are affected by the chilling method. In addition, the Nix was found to be an affordable, objective, and convenient sensor for measuring chicken meat color.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sunoh Che
- Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - Leonardo Susta
- Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - Shai Barbut
- Department of Food Science, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada; Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Singh RK, Sharma N. Physical and biochemical changes in ultra-rapid air chilled broiler muscle and quality of marinated chicken breast filets. FOOD BIOSCI 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
5
|
Practical Opportunities for Microbiome Analyses and Bioinformatics in Poultry Processing. Poult Sci 2022; 101:101787. [PMID: 35346493 PMCID: PMC9079351 DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|