2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Virus recovering from strawberries: Evaluation of a skimmed milk organic flocculation method for assessment of microbiological contamination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although for NoV GII.4 CTAB treatment achieved a higher recovery rate when compared to data reported previously obtained for strawberry samples. 29 In this study, we considered CTAB treatment once its use was efficient for strawberry samples. 29 CTAB is a reagent described to eliminate possible inhibitors of qPCR reaction, as organic compounds, pigments and sugars present in food samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although for NoV GII.4 CTAB treatment achieved a higher recovery rate when compared to data reported previously obtained for strawberry samples. 29 In this study, we considered CTAB treatment once its use was efficient for strawberry samples. 29 CTAB is a reagent described to eliminate possible inhibitors of qPCR reaction, as organic compounds, pigments and sugars present in food samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Skimmed milk flocculation method was performed as described by Melgaço et al 29 including the use of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) ( Fig. 1 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The interactions among native Con A, mutated MCR of Con A (mCon A MCR , 16 DIGDPNYPH 24 / 16 AAAAAAAAA 24 ) and mutated carbohydrate binding region (mCon A CBR ) including Y12F, N14G, L99E, Y100F, and D208G, with HuNoV (GII.4) were measured via SPR ( Fig. 2A and C) to identify the interaction regions of Con A.…”
Section: Complex Generation Between Hunov (Gii4) and Con Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, sample preparation for these methods to detect viral contamination in food and water is complicated by factors such as large sample volumes, low viral titers, and compounds that interfere with nucleic acid amplification [15]. Methods available for NoV concentration, such as swab sampling, polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, ultracentrifugation, cationic separation, immune concentration, and organic flocculation, have limitations due to their narrow pH ranges, time requirements, and difficulties in handling multiple samples at a time [16,17]. Therefore, an alternative method is necessary to overcome the limitations of such methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%