Pressure treatment of ready-to-eat (RTE) meats extends the shelf life and reduces risks associated with Listeria monocytogenes. However, pressure reduces numbers of Listeria on ham by less than 5 log (CFU/g) and pressure effects on other meat microbiota are poorly documented. This study investigated the impact of pressure and RTE meat microbiota, with or without nisin and rosemary oil, on survival of Listeria after refrigerated storage. Ham was inoculated with a 5-strain cocktail of L. monocytogenes alone or with a cocktail of RTE meat microbiota consisting of Brochothrix thermosphacta, Carnobacterium maltaromaticum, Leuconostoc gelidum, and Lactobacillus
sakei. Products were treated at 500 MPa at 5°C for 1 or 3 min, with or without rosemary extract or nisin. Surviving cells were differentially enumerated after pressure treatment and after 4 weeks of refrigerated storage. After 4 weeks of storage, products were also analyzed by high throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons. Pressure treatment reduced counts of Listeria by 1 to 2 log (CFU/g); inactivation of RTE meat microbiota was comparable. Counts of Listeria increased by 1–3 log (CFU/g) during refrigerated storage. RTE meat microbiota did not influence pressure inactivation of Listeria but prevented growth of Listeria during refrigerated storage. Rosemary extract did not influence bacterial inactivation or growth. The combination of nisin with pressure treatment for 3 min reduced counts of Listeria and meat microbiota by >5 log (CFU/g); after 4 weeks of storage, counts were below the detection limit. In conclusion, pressure alone does not eliminate Listeria or other microbiota on RTE ham; however, the presence of non-pathogenic microbiota prevents growth of Listeria on pressure treated ham and has a decisive influence on post-pressure survival and growth.
Geographic food fraud-misrepresenting the geographic origin of a food item, is very difficult to detect, and therefore this type of fraud tends to go undetected. This potentially negatively impacts the health of Canadians and economic success of our seafood industry. Surveillance studies have shown that up to a significant portion of commercially sold seafood items in Canada are mislabeled or otherwise misrepresented in some way. The current study aimed to determine if the microbiome of fresh shellfish could be used as an accurate marker of harvest location. Total DNA was extracted from the homogenate of 25 batches of fresh soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria) harvested in 2015 and 2018 from two locations on the East Coast of Canada and the microbiome of each homogenate was characterized using 16S rRNA targeted amplicon sequencing. Clams harvested from Nova Scotia in both years had a higher abundance of Proteobacteria and Acidobacteria (p < 0.05), but a lower abundance of Actinobacteria (p < 0.05) than those from Quebec. Alpha-diversity also differed significantly between sites. Samples harvested from Nova Scotia had greater diversity (p < 0.0001) than those from Quebec. Beta-diversity analysis showed that the microbial community composition was significantly different between the samples from Nova Scotia and Quebec and indicated that 16S rRNA targeted amplicon sequencing might be an effective tool for elucidating the geographic origin of unprocessed shellfish. To evaluate if the microbiome of shellfish experiences a loss of microbial diversity during processing and storagewhich would limit the ability of this technique to link retail samples to geographic origin, 10 batches of retail clams purchased from grocery stores were also examined. Microbial diversity and species richness was significantly lower in retail clams, and heavily dominated by Proteobacteria, a typical spoilage organism for fresh seafood, this may make determining the geographic origin of seafood items more difficult in retail clams than in freshly harvested clams.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.