The feline calicivirus as a sample process control for the detection of food and waterborne RNA viruses

Mattison, Kirsten; Brassard, Julie; Gagné, Marie-Josée; Ward, Pierre; Houde, Alain; Lessard, Louise; Simard, C; Shukla, Anu; Pagotto, Franco; Jones, T. H.; Trottier, Yvon-Louis

doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.04.002

Cited by 64 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Viral nucleic acids were extracted using a QIAamp viral RNA minikit (Qiagen, Mississauga, ON, Canada). Real-time TaqMan reverse transcription (RT)-PCR and PCR assays for detection of the viruses (some of which are host-attributed viruses) norovirus genogroup I (GI), GII, GIII, and GIV, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, adenovirus type 40/41, human adenoviruses, astrovirus, Sapovirus, torque teno virus (TTV), torque teno sus virus, rotavirus, and feline calicivirus (as a sample process control) were performed in 25-l reaction mixtures with the 1-step Brilliant II quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) core reagent kit for RNA viruses and with the Brilliant I qPCR core kit for DNA viruses (Agilent Technologies Canada, Mississauga, ON, Canada) (32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42). Standard curves were generated using 10-fold serial dilutions of standard cDNA plasmids containing the PCR product of each virus (10 8 to 10 0 genomic equivalents) for viral copy quantification (detection limits of assays, between 1 ϫ10 1 and 1 ϫ 10 0 genomic equivalent copies).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coherence among Different Microbial Source Tracking Markers in a Small Agricultural Stream with or without Livestock Exclusion Practices

Wilkes

Brassard

Edge

et al. 2013

Appl Environ Microbiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h Over 1,400 water samples were collected biweekly over 6 years from an intermittent stream protected and unprotected from pasturing cattle. The samples were monitored for host-specific Bacteroidales markers, Cryptosporidium species/genotypes, viruses and coliphages associated with humans or animals, and bacterial zoonotic pathogens. Ruminant Bacteroidales markers did not increase within the restricted cattle access reach of the stream, whereas the ruminant Bacteroidales marker increased significantly in the unrestricted cattle access reach. Human Bacteroidales markers significantly increased downstream of homes where septic issues were documented. Wildlife Bacteroidales markers were detected downstream of the cattle exclusion practice where stream and riparian habitat was protected, but detections decreased after the unrestricted pasture, where the stream and riparian zone was unprotected from livestock. Detection of a large number of human viruses was shown to increase downstream of homes, and similar trends were observed for the human Bacteroidales marker. There was considerable interplay among biomarkers with stream flow, season, and the cattle exclusion practices. There were no to very weak associations with Bacteroidales markers and bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens. Overall, discrete sample-by-sample coherence among the different microbial source tracking markers that expressed a similar microbial source was minimal, but spatial trends were physically meaningful in terms of land use (e.g., beneficial management practice) effects on sources of fecal pollution. Microbial source tracking (MST) can help reveal the sources of fecal contamination in water resources (1-5). There are a suite of MST tools that have been used in this capacity (6); some of these include the antimicrobial resistance patterns of target bacteria (7, 8), bacterial markers (9), such as Bacteroidales markers (2), host specificity associated with parasitic organisms like Cryptosporidium (10, 11), mitochondrial DNA methods (12, 13), and virus host specificity (14-16). There is potential for these tools to help identify how different land uses can impact the sources of fecal pollution in open-surface-water systems like agricultural watersheds, systems typically prone to variable inputs of human, livestock, and wildlife feces. While these tools have potential utility for such assessments, they are different in their limits of detection, source discrimination power, spatial and temporal stability, persistence in different environmental matrices, and what they express biophysically in water samples; and as such, results from one method may not necessarily be coherent with those of another method (5,17,18). Under some circumstances, however, coherency, or a lack of it, can reveal what biomarkers are appropriate for the use at hand, and MST coherence with the occurrence of other fecal indicator organisms and pathogens can be viewed as an important factor for helping to identify mitigation measures that will reduce public health risks (19)...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coherence among Different Microbial Source Tracking Markers in a Small Agricultural Stream with or without Livestock Exclusion Practices

Wilkes

Brassard

Edge

et al. 2013

Appl Environ Microbiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, the use of a nonpathogenic viruses, mengovirus MC0 (Mattison et al 2009) and feline calicivirus (Butot et al 2008;Cannon et al 2006;Hewitt and Greening 2004;Pintó et al 2009), have been proposed as process control, although the latter has been reported to be an inappropriate surrogate for NoV in acid conditions (Pintó et al 2009). Quantitative standardized procedures presently enable to perform quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) in food samples (Gassilloud et al 2003;Arnal et al 1998).…”

Section: Practical Limit Of Detection (Plod)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical Methods for Virus Detection in Water and Food

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential ways to address the issues that relate to the techniques for analyzing food and environmental samples for the presence of enteric viruses are discussed. It is not the authors' remit to produce or recommend standard or reference methods but to address specific issues in the analytical procedures. Foods of primary importance are bivalve molluscs, particularly, oysters, clams, and mussels; salad crops such as lettuce, green onions and other greens; and soft fruits such as raspberries and strawberries. All types of water, not only drinking water but also recreational water (fresh, marine, and swimming pool), river water (irrigation water), raw and treated sewage are potential vehicles for virus transmission. Well over 100 different enteric viruses could be food or water contaminants; however, with few exceptions, most well-characterized foodborne or waterborne viral outbreaks are restricted to hepatitis A virus (HAV) and calicivirus, essentially norovirus (NoV). Target viruses for analytical methods include, in addition to NoV and HAV, hepatitis E virus (HEV), enteroviruses (e.g., poliovirus), adenovirus, rotavirus, astrovirus, and any other relevant virus likely to be transmitted by food or water. A survey of the currently available methods for detection of viruses in food and environmental matrices was conducted, gathering information on protocols for extraction of viruses from various matrices and on the various specific detection techniques for each virus type.

show abstract

“…Shipments maintained an average temperature of 3.8°C during transit to the testing laboratory. Each 25-g sample was spiked with 10 6 PFU of feline calicivirus (FCV) as a sample process control ( 4 ). Virus was concentrated by using an adsorption-elution-ultrafiltration filtration protocol ( 4 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%