Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T06:29:54.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacteriophage as models for virus removal from Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) during re-laying

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

T. J. Humphrey  and
K. Martin
T. J. Humphrey
Affiliation:
Food Unit, Public Health Laboratory, Church Lane, Heavitree, Exeter EX2 5AD, UK
K. Martin
Affiliation:
Food Unit, Public Health Laboratory, Church Lane, Heavitree, Exeter EX2 5AD, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A study was undertaken to examine the feasibility of using naturally-occurring bacteriophages to assess the impact of re-laying on levels of viral contamination in Crassostrea gigas, the Pacific oyster. Two phages were chosen. One, male-specific (F+), was enumerated using Salmonella typhimurium. The other, a somatic phage, was detected using an, as yet, uncharacterized Escherichia coli. Investigations, using a variety of re-laying sites, demonstrated that numbers of F+ phage in oyster tissue declined more rapidly than those of somatic phage. For example, in oysters placed in commercially-used sea water ponds, F+ phage reached undetectable levels within 2–3 weeks, whereas somatic phage could still be detected 5 weeks after re-laying. The studies suggest that F+ phage may not be a suitable indicator for virus removal and that somatic phage may be better suited to this role.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 325 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1.Sockett, PN, West, PA, Jacob, M. Shellfish and public health. PHLS Microbiol Digest 1985; 2: 29–35.Google Scholar
2.Anon. The Shellfish Directive (91/492). European Community 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Richards, GP. Microbial purification of shellfish: a review of depuration and re-laying. J Food Protec 1988; 51: 218–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.West, PA. Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) concept: application to bivalve shellfish purification systems. J Roy Soc Hlth 1986; 106: 133–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Anon. Foodborne viral gastroenteritis. PHLS Microbiol Digest 1988; 5: 69–75.Google Scholar
6.Quayle, DB, Bernard, FR. Purification of basket held Pacific oysters in the natural environment. Proc Nat Shellfish Assoc 1966; 66: 69–75.Google Scholar
7.Becker, RE. A basket relaying study off the coast of Alabama: reduction of coliform bacteria as a function of time and basket loading. In Wilt, DS, ed. Proceedings of the 10th National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, USA. 1977: 74–8.Google Scholar
8.Son, NT, Fleet, GN. Behaviour of pathogenic bacteria in the oyster, Crassostrea commercialis, during depuration, relaying and storage. Appl Environ Microbiol 1980; 40: 994–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Cook, DW, Ellender, RD. Relaying to decrease the concentration of oyster-associated pathogens. J Food Protec 1986; 49: 196–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Havelaar, AH. Bacteriophages as model organisms in water treatment. Microbiol Sci 1987; 4: 362–4.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Havelaar, AH, Hogeboom, WM, Pot, R. F-specific RNA bacteriophages in sewage: methodology and occurrence. Water Sci Tech 1984; 17: 645–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Power, U, Collins, JK. Differential depuration of poliovirus, Escherichia coli and a coliphage by the common mussel, Mytilus edulis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55: 1386–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Power, UF, Collins, JK. Tissue distribution of a coliphage and Escherichia coli in mussels after contamination and depuration. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56: 803–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Humphrey, TJ, Martin, K. An investigation into the use of coliphage as an indicator of shellfish hygiene. In: Proceedings of the UK Symposium on Health-Related Water Microbiology. Morris, R, Alexander, RM, Wyn-Jones, P, Sellwood, J, eds. Glasgow: IAWPRC, 1991: 120–3.Google Scholar
15.Havelaar, AH, Furuse, K, Hogeboom, WM. Bacteriophages and indicator bacteria in human and animal faeces. J Appl Bacteriol 1986; 60: 255–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Bradley, DE. Ultrastructure of bacteriophages and bacteriocins. Bacteriol Rev 1967; 31: 230–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Havelaar, AH, Hogeboom, WM, Pot, R. A method for the enumeration of male-specific bacteriophages in sewage. J Appl Bacteriol 1984; 56: 439–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.West, PA, Coleman, MR. A tentative national reference procedure for isolation and enumeration of Escherichia coli from bivalve molluscan shellfish by most probable number method. J Appl Bacteriol 1986; 61: 505–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Bemiss, JA, Logan, MM, Sample, D, Richards, GP. A method for the enumeration of poliovirus in selected molluscan shellfish. J Virol Meth 1989; 26: 209–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Ayres, PA. Coliphages in sewage and the marine environment. In: Skinner, FA, Shewan, JM, eds. Aquatic microbiology. London: Academic Press, 1977: 275–98.Google Scholar
21.Mesquita, MMF. Effects of seawater contamination level and exposure period on the bacterial and viral accumulation and elimination processes by Mytilus edulis. Water Sci Tech 1988; 20: 265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar