Table_1_Consequences of Implementing Neutralizing Buffered Peptone Water in Commercial Poultry Processing on the Microbiota of Whole Bird Carcass Rinses and the Subsequent Microbiological Analyses.docx

In 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) established guidelines which modified the Buffered Peptone Water (BPW) rinsate material to include additional compounds that would better neutralize residual processing aids and allow for better recovery of sublethal injured Salmonella spp. cells. While the added compounds improved the recovery of Salmonella spp., specific data to understand how the new rinse agent, neutralizing Buffered Peptone Water (nBPW), impacts the recovery of other microorganisms such as Campylobacter spp. and indicator microorganisms are lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the impact of rinse solutions (BPW or nBPW) used in Whole Bird Carcass rinsate (WBCR) collections on the subsequent microbiome and downstream culturing methodologies. Carcasses exiting a finishing chiller were rinsed in 400 ml of BPW or nBPW. Resulting rinsates were analyzed for Enterobacteriaceae (EB), Salmonella, and Campylobacter spp. prevalence and total aerobic bacteria (APC) and EB load. The 16S rDNA of the rinsates and the matrices collected from applied microbiological analyses were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq®. Log10-transformed counts were analyzed in JMP 15 using ANOVA with means separated using Tukey’s HSD, and prevalence data were analyzed using Pearson’s χ2 (P ≤ 0.05). Diversity and microbiota compositions (ANCOM) were analyzed in QIIME 2.2019.7 (P ≤ 0.05; Q ≤ 0.05). There was an effect of rinsate type on the APC load and Campylobacter spp. prevalence (P < 0.05), but not the quantity or prevalence of EB or Salmonella spp. prevalence. There were differences between the microbial diversity of the two rinsate types and downstream analyses (P < 0.05). Additionally, several taxa, including Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, Aeromonas, Acinetobacter, Clostridium, Enterococcaceae, Burkholderiaceae, and Staphylococcaceae, were differentially abundant in paired populations. Therefore, the rinse buffer used in a WBCR collection causes proportional shifts in the microbiota, which can lead to differences in results obtained from cultured microbial populations.

2016年，美国农业部食品安全检验局（FSIS）制定了新的指导方针，对缓冲蛋白胨水（BPW）冲洗材料进行了修改，增加了能够更有效地中和残留加工助剂并提高亚致死损伤沙门氏菌（Salmonella spp.）细胞回收率的额外化合物。尽管这些添加的化合物提高了沙门氏菌的回收率，但关于新型冲洗剂——中和缓冲蛋白胨水（nBPW）对其他微生物，如弯曲菌（Campylobacter spp.）和指示微生物回收率影响的特定数据仍然匮乏。因此，本研究旨在评估用于整鸡体表冲洗（WBCR）收集的冲洗溶液（BPW或nBPW）对后续微生物群和下游培养方法的影响。从完成冷却器的鸡体上，以400毫升的BPW或nBPW进行冲洗。所得冲洗液被分析以检测肠杆菌科（Enterobacteriaceae, EB）、沙门氏菌和弯曲菌（Campylobacter spp.）的流行率和总需氧菌（APC）以及EB负荷。冲洗液的16S rDNA以及从应用的微生物分析中收集的基质在Illumina MiSeq®上进行测序。使用JMP 15对对数10变换计数进行ANOVA分析，并使用Tukey的HSD方法分离均值，而流行率数据则使用Pearson的χ2检验进行分析（P ≤ 0.05）。在QIIME 2.2019.7（P ≤ 0.05；Q ≤ 0.05）中分析了多样性及微生物群落组成（ANCOM）。冲洗液类型对APC负荷和弯曲菌（Campylobacter spp.）的流行率有显著影响（P < 0.05），但对EB数量或沙门氏菌（Salmonella spp.）的流行率没有影响。两种冲洗液类型的微生物多样性及其下游分析存在差异（P < 0.05）。此外，在配对群体中，包括链球菌、乳酸杆菌、嗜水气单胞菌、不动杆菌、梭菌、肠球菌科、伯克霍尔德菌科和葡萄球菌科在内的多个分类群存在显著差异。因此，在WBCR收集过程中使用的冲洗缓冲液会引起微生物群的比例性转变，这可能导致从培养的微生物群体中获得的结果存在差异。