Cited by 410Listeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Methods for the isolation and identification of Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes: a review

Gasanov, Uta, Hughes, Denise, Hansbro, Philip M.·2005·FEMS Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

Listeria monocytogenes is an important food-borne pathogen and is widely tested for in food, environmental and clinical samples. Identification traditionally involved culture methods based on selective enrichment and plating followed by the characterization of Listeria spp. based on colony morphology, sugar fermentation and haemolytic properties. These methods are the gold standard; but they are lengthy and may not be suitable for testing of foods with short shelf lives. As a result more rapid tests were developed based on antibodies (ELISA) or molecular techniques (PCR or DNA hybridization). While these tests possess equal sensitivity, they are rapid and allow testing to be completed within 48 h. More recently, molecular methods were developed that target RNA rather than DNA, such as RT-PCR, real time PCR or nucleic acid based sequence amplification (NASBA). These tests not only provide a measure of cell viability but they can also be used for quantitative analysis. In addition, a variety of tests are available for sub-species characterization, which are particularly useful in epidemiological investigations. Early typing methods differentiated isolates based on phenotypic markers, such as multilocus enzyme electrophoresis, phage typing and serotyping. These phenotypic typing methods are being replaced by molecular tests, which reflect genetic relationships between isolates and are more accurate. These new methods are currently mainly used in research but their considerable potential for routine testing in the future cannot be overlooked.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.femsre.2004.12.002

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 290 · Cited by 410

Authors
Gasanov, U., Hughes, D., & Hansbro, P. M.
Affiliations
Hunter Medical Research Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Hansbro, Philip M.
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Reviews
Published
2005-11
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
851-875
ISSN
  • 0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-6976
OpenAlex
W2117457191
Cited by
410
References
290
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 27
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • FEMS Microbiology Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Hunter Medical Research Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
Listeria monocytogenes, Listeria spp., bacterial isolation, bacterial identification, foodborne pathogens, rapid detection, RT-PCR, NASBA, molecular typing, multilocus enzyme electrophoresis, phage typing, serotyping, food safety testing
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteriological Techniques, Environmental Microbiology, Food Microbiology, Humans, Listeria, Listeriosis, Listeria monocytogenes, Bacterial Typing Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review