Next Article in Journal
The GRAS Salts of Na2SiO3 and EDTA-Na2 Control Citrus Postharvest Pathogens by Disrupting the Cell Membrane
Previous Article in Journal
Partial Characterization and Immunomodulatory Effects of Exopolysaccharides from Streptococcus thermophilus SBC8781 during Soy Milk and Cow Milk Fermentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/foods12122373
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Frozen Bivalve Molluscs

by
Eleonora Di Salvo
1,
Felice Panebianco
2,*,
Antonio Panebianco
1 and
Graziella Ziino
1
1
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, Polo Universitario dell’Annunziata, Viale Palatucci snc, 98168 Messina, Italy
2
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Braccini 2, Grugliasco, 10095 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(12), 2373; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122373
Submission received: 12 May 2023 / Revised: 6 June 2023 / Accepted: 11 June 2023 / Published: 15 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is a foodborne pathogen diffusely distributed in the marine environment and often isolated from raw seafood belonging to different species, mostly shellfish. Ingestion of under- or uncooked seafood contaminated by V. parahaemolyticus can cause severe gastrointestinal symptoms in humans. Due to its ability to withstand low temperatures, Vibrio spp. could survive in frozen seafoods for long periods by entering the viable but nonculturable state (VBNC) and may constitute an unrecognized source of food contamination and infection. In the present study, seventy-seven frozen bivalve molluscs (35 mussels; 42 clams) were subjected to the detection and enumeration of viable V. parahaemolyticus using standard culture methods. VBNC forms were detected and quantified by applying an optimized protocol based on Propidium Monoazide (PMA) and Quantitative PCR (qPCR). All samples were negative for both the detection and enumeration of V. parahaemolyticus by the standard culture methods. VBNC forms were detected in 11.7% of the samples (9/77), with values ranging from 1.67 to 2.29 Log CFU/g. Only clam samples were positive for the detection of VBNC forms. The results of this study highlighted that VBNC V. parahaemolyticus may be present in frozen bivalve molluscs. Further data on the prevalence of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in frozen seafood are needed in order to perform a robust risk assessment.

1. Introduction

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is a Gram-negative foodborne pathogen naturally present in marine and estuarine environments throughout the world. As a typical pathogen in seafood, it is one of the safety issues concerning these products, and food poisoning outbreaks caused by Vibrio spp. have been reported worldwide [1,2,3]. This bacterium can be commonly isolated from raw seafood, especially shellfish, with 100-fold greater levels in filter-feeding shellfish than in the surrounding water. To bring the amounts of undesirable microorganisms to acceptable levels for human consumption, purification of bivalves in controlled waters is used. However, it has been reported that some Vibrio species are resistant to depuration and can persist and replicate in bivalve tissues [4,5]. The ingestion of raw, undercooked, or contaminated products is considered the main cause of human infection. The disease can result in diarrhea, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, low fever and, in some cases, septicemia, shock, coma, and even death [6,7]. Less commonly, this organism can cause skin infections when an open wound is exposed to warm seawater [8]. In contrast to The United States and Asia, V. parahaemolyticus infections are rarely reported in Europe [9]. However, occasional outbreaks have been reported in some Mediterranean countries and surveys suggest that the incidence of V. parahaemolyticus infections also seems to be on the rise in Europe [10,11,12,13]. In the European Union, of 326 food samples from Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 32 (9.8%) were positive for Vibrio spp. These positive results involved raw fish, shrimps, and lobsters from border inspection activities in the three countries. In 2019, four Vibrio outbreaks were reported by France and Italy and V. parahaemolyticus was identified as the agent in all French outbreaks [14]. According to the current European Legislation (EC Reg. No. 2073/2005 and amendments) [15], the evaluation of shellfish safety is based on Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. as indicators of faecal pollution. However, several studies [16,17] have shown that faecal indicators represent an inappropriate marker of microbiological safety and are scarcely correlated with the presence of microorganisms typical of the aquatic environment, including Vibrio spp., and other pathogens found in small quantities (Norovirus, E. coli O157:H7). Therefore, in the EC Reg. No. 2073/2005, no specific criteria for the detection of pathogenic V. parahaemolyticus in seafood are foreseen but, considering the epidemiological significance of this foodborne pathogen, there is an essential need to also detect the bacterium with molecular biological techniques [18].
Frozen storage is a method commonly used by the food industry to maintain product quality by inhibiting microbial growth. It has been reported to be effective in achieving certain reduction rates of V. parahaemolyticus in fish fillets, crabs, octopuses, shrimp, and oyster meat [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, Vibrio spp. has been detected in frozen seafood products [26,27,28,29,30]. In this regard, the survival of vibrios at low temperatures is affected by several factors, namely temperature, salinity [31], acidity [32], organic nutrients [33], etc. Chitin, some amino acids, peptides, or phosphates have shown protective effects for V. cholerae [34] and V. parahaemolyticus [25,35]. Furthermore, as described by Wong et al. [25], psychrotrophic strains may have better survival potential than other mesophilic strains in frozen products and could probably enhance the risk of vibrios in frozen foods. Temperatures of −10 °C could be more effective at inactivating V. parahaemolyticus than −20 or −30 °C. Liu et al. [36] observed that this bacterium was reduced, in raw oysters, by 4.55, 4.13, and 2.53 log MPN/g after six months of storage at temperatures of −10, −20, and −30 °C, respectively. In a similar study, Shen et al. [22] demonstrated a reduction in the bacterial population from an initial level of 8.59 log CFU/mL to 2.04 and 3.84 log CFU/mL after 15 days of storage at −18 and −30 °C, respectively.
During the breeding, processing, and storage of seafood, V. parahaemolyticus can enter a viable but nonculturable (VBNC) state due to the low temperatures or excessive salinity commonly used for food preservation [37,38]. In the VBNC state, microorganisms become undetectable by routinary control tests since they do not form colonies on standard culture media [39,40]. It has been suggested that the VBNC state is an adaptive strategy for the long-term survival of bacteria under unfavourable environmental conditions [40,41] and represents a serious risk to human health. Several types of stressful conditions may induce the VBNC state in foodborne pathogens, including freezing, refrigeration, cooking, fermentation, and additive addition [42]. In addition, some food processing techniques, including high-pressure processing, electrolyzed water, pulsed electric field, pulsed light, nonthermal plasma, irradiation, ozone, and thermosonication [43,44,45] may also induce bacteria into the VBNC state [46]. To date, more than 100 bacterial and fungal species, most of which are pathogenic, have been found to enter the VBNC state in several foods, such as milk, dairy products, meat and meat products, seafoods, fruits and vegetables, juices, wine, and beer [47,48]. This list also includes many marine bacteria, including Vibrio species [49,50]. VBNC cells show important morphological changes, such as a reduction in cell size and/or modifications in membrane composition and the cell wall [41]. Additionally, survival ability under harsh environmental stresses, and physiological and molecular differences between VBNC and cultivable cells have been reported, such as RNA amount, gene expression, profiles of proteins, ATP synthesis, virulence, metabolism, and physical and/or chemical resistance [48]. Although the pathogenicity of VBNC cells per se is controversial, there is irrefutable evidence that they can regain infectivity and pathogenicity after resuscitation, causing human illness or food spoilage [40,51,52,53]. This resuscitation from the VBNC state requires specific conditions, including the removal of stressors, addition of rich nutrients, osmotic pressure stabilisation, hydrogen peroxide degradation, and host presence [54,55,56]. In particular, it was found that a temperature upshift may be strongly associated with the reversibility of VBNC bacteria [57,58]. VBNC bacteria in food environments may therefore represent a serious risk for human health as a result of potential underestimations of the total viable cells. In addition, their ability to resuscitate also endangers human life. For these reasons, in recent years, researchers have developed several culture-independent techniques based on the distinct characteristics of VBNC microbial cells, but each of them has pitfalls and limitations [47].
Molecular techniques, such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification (qLAMP) for target gene amplification, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used as alternatives to conventional methods for detecting, identifying, and quantifying microorganisms [59,60,61]. However, qPCR fails to distinguish among non-viable and viable cells, which can result in false positives [47,62]. To surmount this limitation, nucleic acid intercalating dyes, such as propidium monoazide (PMA) and ethidium monoazide (EMA), were applied to qPCR to discriminate and quantify VBNC microorganisms [23,37,63,64,65,66,67]. These nucleic acid dyes, in fact, penetrate and covalently bind to genomic DNA after photoactivation in non-viable cells, reducing the amplification of stained DNAs from dead cells [58]. PMA is indicated as a better dye, since EMA is known to bind also to the DNA of viable cells [68,69,70]. As described by several authors [68,70,71], PMA-qPCR is the preferred method for distinguishing between viable from non-viable cells. Hence, it may be used as a method for the quantitative detection of bacteria in the VBNC state [72]. This method was used for the detection of various VBNC bacteria cells, such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, and other bacteria [23,37,56,64,66,73,74].
The detection of live bacteria in food is crucial not only for food safety concerns, but also to avoid useless product recalls and economic losses [75]. Furthermore, the detection of pathogenic bacteria, potentially occurring even in the VBNC state, in food preserved at low temperatures could provide important information for food contamination risk assessments. Even if the presence of VBNC bacteria in food is well documented [76,77,78], data on the occurrence of V. parahaemolyticus in frozen bivalve molluscs are still extremely limited. The aim of this study was to detect and quantify VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in frozen bivalve molluscs regularly marketed in Italy by means of species-specific PMA-qPCR and plate count techniques.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples Preparation

The present investigation was carried out on 77 samples of frozen bivalve molluscs, including clams (n. 42/77; 54.5%) and mussels (n. 35/77; 45.5%), purchased from different stores of mass-market retailers in Sicily (Italy) from February 2020 to January 2021. All samples were sold in plastic trays, individually sanitized, weighing between 200 and 500 g, and kept at a temperature of −25 ± 1 °C. From the label, it was possible to trace the FAO fishing area of each sample and the shelf life from a minimum of 18 to a maximum of 24 months. All samples were taken before the expiration date (Table 1).
Clam samples included n. 35/42 (83.3%) shelled and n. 7/42 (16.7%) whole-shell products belonging to five species [Paphia undulata (n. 13/42; 31.0%), Chamelea gallina (n. 13/42; 31.0%), Paphia textile (n. 10/42; 23,8%), Meretrix lyrata (n. 4/42; 9.5%), Meretrix meretrix (n. 2/42; 4.8%)] and three fishing areas [n. 25/42 (59.5%) from FAO zone 71, n. 2/42 (4.8%) from FAO zone 37, n. 15/42 (35.7%) from FAO zone 61]. Mussels included n. 32/35 (91.4%) shelled, n. 2/35 (5.7%) half-shell, and n. 1/35 (2.9%) whole-shell products all belonging to one species (Mytilus chilensis) and from the same fishing area (FAO zone 87). Samples were transferred to the laboratory under cold conditions and analysed within 24 h. One hundred grams of each sample were first thawed (<5 °C for 4 h) to avoid heat shock, then treated in a water bath at <20 °C for 15–20 min, homogenized, and divided into aliquots of 25 g. Each aliquot was diluted with sterile alkaline saline peptone water (ASPW) (pH 8.6 ± 0.2; Biolife, Milan, Italy) in a ratio of 1:9 (w/v) and homogenized through a stomacher (Stomacher® 400 Circulator, International PBI s.p.a., Milan, Italy) for 2 min. Samples thus prepared were processed to determine V. parahaemolyticus via standard culture methods and PMA q-PCR to discriminate VBNC cells.

2.2. Detection and Enumeration of V. parahaemolyticus via Standard Culture Methods

The enumeration of V. parahaemolyticus was performed in duplicate on Thiosulfate Citrate Bile Sucrose (TCBS) (Difco, Le Point de Claix, France) agar plates, incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 24 h, according to the EN ISO 21872-1:2017 [79]. For the detection, a pre-enrichment was instead performed in ASPW (Biolife), incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 24 h. Subsequently, a loopful was spread on TCBS (Difco) agar plates, and, after incubation, plates were checked for the presence/absence of typical colonies.

2.3. PMA Assay and Genomic DNA Extraction

The PMA-qPCR assay was performed for the detection of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus as described by Liu et al. [64] with slight modifications. PMA dye (Biotium, Inc., Hayward, CA, USA) was dissolved in high-purity water to obtain a 20 mM stock solution and stored at −20 °C in the dark, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were then divided into two groups: the control and the PMA treated group. PMA was added to 500 μL live and heat-inactivated culture aliquots to a final concentration of 0, 10, 15, 20, 50, and 100 μM in the dark for 5, 10, and 15 min. A prolonged incubation period also favoured the decrease of the PCR signal from the heat-killed cells [56].
Considering the CT values for the viable and killed-cell aliquots (~109 CFU/mL), we determined that 20 μM of PMA for 10 min was a consistent value for discrimination, and, consequently, it was chosen as the treatment value for the samples. At the end of the incubation, samples were exposed to light from a 650 W halogen light source at 20 cm on ice for 30 min. After photoinduced cross-linking, the free PMA was removed by centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 10 min before DNA extraction. DNA was isolated from 200 μL of the suspensions, PMA-treated or untreated, using NucliSENS easyMag unit (BioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) to a final 20 μL extraction following the manufacturer’s protocol. The quality and concentration of DNA extracts were assessed at 260/280 and 260/230 nm using a SmartSpec Plus spectrophotometer (Bio-Rad, Milan, Italy). All DNA preparations were stored at −20 °C until use.

2.4. Real-Time qPCR Analysis

All frozen bivalve mollusc samples were examined by qPCR and PMA-qPCR. The target gene in this study was the tlh gene of V. parahaemolyticus, and the primer sequences were designed according to Bej et al. [80] as follows: forward primer Ltl 5′-AAAGCGGATTATGCAGAAGCACTG-3′ and reverse primer Rtl 5′-GCTACTTTCTAGCATTTTCTCTGC-3′. The length of the amplicon was 450 bp. The specificity of primers was assessed employing 17 bacterial strains (Table 2). PCR amplification mixture contained 10 μL of PowerUp SYBR Green Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Monza, Italy), 2 μL of template DNA, 2 μL of each primer (final concentration 0.6 µM), and 4 μL nuclease-free water in a final volume of 20 μL. The cycling parameters were: 2 min at 50 °C, 2 min at 95 °C followed by 40 cycles of 15 s at 95 °C and 1 min at 60 °C. The qPCR was performed using the CFX96 TouchTM (Bio-Rad) with the Bio-Rad CFX manager 3.0 software.

2.5. Bacterial Strain and Growth Conditions

The reference strain of V. parahaemolyticus ATCC 17802, provided in freeze-dried form, was preserved in 20% (v/v) glycerol broth at −80 °C, then grown on nutrient agar (NA) (Biolife) supplemented with 3% (w/v) NaCl. After incubation at 37 °C for 18–24 h, a loopful of a colony was picked up and subsequently suspended in tryptic soy broth (TSB; Biolife) supplemented with 3.0% (w/v) NaCl, incubated with shaking (200 r/min) at 37 °C overnight to make cell suspensions. V. parahaemolyticus cells from log phase (OD600 = 1.0) were harvested by centrifugation at 8400 rpm for 5 min at 4 °C and then washed twice with an equal volume of artificial sea water (ASW) to make cell suspensions. ASW was prepared with sea salt (Sigma Aldrich, Milan, Italy) at a concentration of 30 g/L and it was filter-sterilized using 0.22 μm membrane filters (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany).

2.6. Preparation of Heat-Killed Cell Suspension

The heat-killed cell suspension was prepared by treating the cell suspension at 90 °C for 15 min. The absence of culturable cells was confirmed by pour-planting on 3% NaCl tryptic soy agar (TSA, Biolife) and the absence of any colony formation after incubation at 37 °C for 24 h.

2.7. Standard Curve

For the standard curves (Ct values versus log10 CFU/mL), 10-fold serial dilutions starting with 109 CFU/mL of overnight cultures of V. parahaemolyticus ATCC 17802 were prepared, and bacteria were enumerated by the classic plate-counting method ranging from 109 to 101 CFU/mL. One millilitre of each dilution was treated with PMA under optimal conditions, the DNA template was extracted, and then the specific target was amplified in three experiments. The signals (Ct) were plotted against the log10 CFU/mL. Correlation coefficients (R2) and the amplification efficiencies were obtained as described by Rasmussen [81]. The limit of detection (LOD), and, consequently, the sensitivity of the PMA RTqPCR, was verified from the serial dilution of each standard prepared according to Caraguel et al. [82]. There was a strong linear correlation (r2 = 0.997) between the Ct value and log10 CFU/mL in the range. The detection limit was 1.30 log CFU/mL. In this study, results with Ct values greater than 36 were considered negative (Figure 1).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Data of positive samples were analysed with a two-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05; GraphPad Prism version 9.0.0, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) to detect significant differences among the samples in terms of CT values and predicted Log CFU/g.

3. Results

All the analysed samples were negative both for the detection and enumeration of V. parahaemolyticus by the standard culture methods (see Section 2.2). The qPCR and PMA-qPCR analyses resulted in the detection of putative VBNC forms only for clam samples. Fourteen samples (18.2% of all samples) were, in fact, positive in the qPCR detection. PMA-qPCR was able to discriminate between dead bacteria and VBNC forms, confirming the presence of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in nine (11.7% of all samples) of the 14 qPCR-positive samples with predicted Log values ranging from 1.67 to 2.29 Log CFU/g (Table 3).
The nine VBNC positive samples belonged to the category of shelled clams and included three species [Chamelea gallina (n. 4/9; 44.4%), Paphia undulata (n. 4/9; 44.4%), Paphia textile (n. 1/9; 11.1%)] and two fishing areas [n. 8/9 (88.9%) from FAO zone 71, n. 1/9 (11.1%) from FAO zone 61].

4. Discussion

In recent years, researchers have focused on the study of VBNC forms due to the wide variety of foodborne pathogens that can enter this state. VBNC cells, in fact, could pose a serious threat to food safety, given their ability to escape from traditional detection and enumeration methods, to withstand harsh situations (heat treatment, antibiotics, etc.), and to resuscitate and potentially lead to disease in consumers [39,40,46]. Therefore, the advancement of quick and efficient approaches for the detection of VBNC bacteria in food has become an urgent need. PMA-qPCR has been proven effective in differentiating live from dead bacteria [23,37,56,58,64,66]. In fact, different protocols have been developed to selectively identify VBNC V. parahaemolyticus cells employing PMA associated with several molecular methods [23,37,64,65,66,67]. Furthermore, different genetic markers were employed in PCR assays for detection of V. parahaemolyticus, including tdh, trh, toxR, 16s rDNA, pR72H, gyrB, and vp1332 [83,84,85,86,87]. The thermolabile haemolysin gene (tlh) encoding a phospholipase A2 is considered a species-specific marker for V. parahaemolyticus and is often utilised to identify this species [80,88]. Therefore, the unique fragment of the tlh gene was selected as the genetic marker in this study. The sensitivity of the PMA-qPCR assay was tested using serial dilutions of V. parahaemolyticus genomic DNA template. The LOD of PMA-qPCR was calculated to be 1.30 log CFU/mL, with the benefit of rapidity and specificity versus the standard culture method. Other qPCR assays developed in previous studies reported LODs for V. parahemolyticus of 1.2 × 102 CFU/mL [64], 5 × 101 CFU/g [63], 12 CFU/reaction [66], and 28 CFU/g [62]. Previous studies indicated that different factors, such as the quantification of all cells (dead and viable) compared to viable cells, the use of various dyes (e.g., PMA or EMA), bacteria, primers, protocols for DNA extraction, and the qPCR procedure could contribute to the variation of the reported LODs. In addition, the optimal concentration of PMA varied among the different studies. Furthermore, it is known that these methodologies must be validated for each matrix type to prevent an overestimation of VBNC cells resulting from the occurrence of dead cells with intact membranes [89]. As reported by several authors [68,76,89,90], higher PMA concentrations might interfere with the DNA amplification of viable cells, leading to underestimations in viable cell quantifications or erroneous results. Conversely, a lower PMA concentration might not be completely effective in inhibiting the signal from the dead cells, causing overevaluation. However, several studies have demonstrated that the capacity of PMA to eliminate the signal from dead-cell DNA increases sharply with increased PMA concentrations [56,64]. As reported by Fittipaldi et al. [68], the time that cells are exposed to a viability dye must be long enough to allow the chemical to enter membrane-compromised cells and intercalate into their DNA. Incubation times must be viewed in the context of the microbial species targeted and the concentration of the dye applied. By using low dye concentrations, incubation times can be considered more flexible. For bacteria, an incubation time of five minutes is generally accepted and more commonly used [68]. In our study, at 20 µM and incubation time of 10 minutes, PMA treatment eliminated more than 99% of the signal from the dead cell’s DNA compared with the untreated control. Recently, novel detection methods were developed for VBNC cells, including phage-mediated detection systems, biosensors, microfluidic-based techniques, D2O-labeled Raman spectroscopy, matrix-assisted-laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, autoradiography, ATP generation, and DNase I protection assay [41,44]. However, for the moment, there is not much data on their applications in food products.
During the last decades, diseases triggered by foodborne pathogens have become a significant public health issue worldwide. Among these, V. parahaemolyticus was frequently responsible for causing disease, becoming a big threat for public safety [91]. In particular, the higher consumption of raw or uncooked seafood has increased interest in this microorganism. However, the ability of V. parahaemolyticus to tolerate low temperatures, and its detection in frozen products, extends the range of dangerous foods for consumers including also frozen seafood [23,92]. Several factors affect the viability of V. parahaemolyticus during freezing and thawing, such as the extracellular concentration of solutes in the food, growth phase of the microorganism, presence of natural cryoprotectants (chitin, some amino acids, or peptides), pH, temperature, freezing rate, exposure to chemical stresses before freezing, amount of nutrients in the environment, cooling or freezing medium composition, rate of cooling, dissolution, thawing speed, etc. [93]. Studies conducted on oyster meat, octopus, crabs, and fish fillets [20,24,25] show that, after an initial rapid decrease, Vibrio is able to adapt to low temperatures through modifications of the composition of the fatty acids of the cell membrane and protein synthesis [25], remaining viable and potentially pathogenic for a long time. In addition, like other bacteria, Vibrio spp. can enter the VBNC state during freezing. A recent study [23] showed that the risk of V. parahaemolyticus persisted in sea bass stored at 4 °C, −18 °C and −45 °C for 14 days; the fastest decrease in culturability, and a higher level of transition to the VBNC state were observed in samples stored at sub-zero temperatures. This is worrying, considering that studies have demonstrated how VBNC forms of Vibrio can become active again after cold storage and freezing due to temperature upshifts [94,95]. This could lead to a growth of Vibrio in products during thawing and, if the foods are not subsequently cooked adequately, cells that have regained their viable state could persist and cause disease.
In this study, all samples were negative for viable V. parahaemolyticus with culture-dependent methods, while PMA-qPCR detected and quantified VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in 11.7% of culture-negative samples. Only clam samples were positive for VBNC V. parahaemolyticus. While there are numerous studies on the use of PMA-qPCR on artificially contaminated seafood samples, including shrimp, crab, fish, and shellfish [23,62,64,66,96], few of them have addressed the efficacy of these methods for detecting V. parahaemolyticus in marketed seafood. Yu et al. [96], in a comparative study using real-time fluorescent PMA-LAMP and PMA-qPCR on 139 fishery product samples, including cod, grilled croaker, dried squid, and shrimp, reported a positivity of 2.16% for both methods.
Niu et al. [97], in a study aimed at establishing a novel qPCR for the simultaneous detection and quantification of viable pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains of V. parahaemolyticus in raw shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) and clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) purchased from various regions of Shanghai, did not find V. parahaemolyticus in any sample. In a study conducted by Zhu et al. [66] to investigate the utility of the PMA-qPCR method, and quantify tdh-positive viable cells of V. parahaemolyticus in raw seafood, including oyster, scallop, shrimp, and crab, viable V. parahaemolyticus were isolated from three (10%) oyster samples, two (6.7%) shrimp samples, two (6.7%) crab samples, and one (3.3%) scallop sample. Recently, some studies on a new DNA-intercalating agent, PMAxx, produced on the basis of PMA, would have shown greater activity and better ability to distinguish between live and dead bacteria [98]. However, PMAxx-applied research on seafood is rarely reported at present [62,67,99].
Our results are substantially in accordance with other studies on viable V. parahaemolyticus in frozen products. In fact, viable Vibrio spp., including V. parahaemolyticus, are commonly isolated from fresh bivalve shellfish worldwide [100,101,102] but their occurrence in frozen products is less common. Panebianco et al. [28], on 81 samples of frozen bivalve molluscs, isolated V. parahaemolyticus in 3.24% of samples (clams, scallops, mussels). Tang et al. [27], in frozen molluscs marketed in Malaysia, reported higher percentages (43.75% with the classic method, and 57.5% with PCR), but the authors did not exclude the possibility of cross-contamination in the marketing phases for contact with other fishery products and ice. Similar results showing clams as the main source of V. parahaemolyticus were obtained by Lopatek et al. [103] (31 of 120 clam samples, 25.8%) and Roque et al. [104] (38 of 90 clam samples, 42.2%). Lamon et al. [100,102] detected higher loads of Vibrio spp. in clams (Ruditapes decussatus) than in mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) collected in Sardinia (Italy). According to these authors, the detection of V. parahaemolyticus only in clams in our study could be linked to the harvesting method. Clams, in fact, are usually harvested in muddy sand sediments while mussels are collected in ropes suspended in the water column. Since it has been demonstrated that loads of Vibrio spp. are higher in the sediments compared to the water column, the detection of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus only in clam samples in our study appears justifiable [42,100,102,105]. Another explanation for the positive detection only in clam samples may be related to the handling undergone by the products during the shelling process. Shen et al. [22] demonstrated that at −18 °C the populations of V. parahaemolyticus were reduced to non-detectable levels in shucked oysters after 60 days (<3.8 log MPN/g) and to 0.38 log MPN/g in shell stock oysters after 75 days. These data suggested that frozen storage is an effective method for reducing V. parahaemolyticus, but also that Vibrio levels were higher in shelled than in shucked oysters. We can hypothesize that a preliminary handling of molluscs during the shelling process could result in higher initial bacteria loads and, consequently, more VBNC forms during freezing. Another factor to consider is seasonality. In this regard, a study [106] showed that lab-grown Vibrio were eliminated by oysters after depuration, while naturally present Vibrio persisted. This did not explain, however, why oysters that initially seemed characterized by low levels of Vibrio suddenly contained several logs more of such bacteria after exposure to a different bacterial population. This may be the consequence of a natural bacterial population already existing in a viable but non culturable state during cold months. In addition, it may be possible that the bacterium enters this form to survive the decreased temperatures. Several studies reported the absence of viable Vibrio in oysters during cold-water months, and their re-appearance when warmer waters return [107,108,109]. The findings presented here offer further insights as to how and why cells present in molluscs in the VBNC state become detectable upon the increase of water temperatures and the bacterial communities of these waters during spring and summer months.
The results of this study showed that VBNC forms of V. parahaemolyticus can persist in bivalve molluscs subjected to freezing and confirm that this bacterium may represent a concern for consumers due to its adaptation abilities. Although little information is available on the role of a VBNC state in foodborne outbreaks, due to limitations in the detection and traceability of the original source, it is not possible to exclude that VBNC bacteria could be implicated in foodborne diseases. For instance, an outbreak due to salted salmon roe containing VBNC E. coli O157:H7 was reported in Japan [110]. Asakura et al. [111] have instead suggested that Salmonella Oranienburg could enter the VBNC state after NaCl stress in the outbreak provoked by dried processed squids; this assumption was corroborated by resuscitation trials. In 2011, the possibility that an initially undetected E. coli O104:H4 strain was responsible for a large outbreak (about 3000 cases) causing enterohemorrhagic and enteroaggregative diseases was discussed by Aurass et al. [112]. Even if there is no proof that VBNC pathogens directly led to these outbreaks, the above-mentioned surveys emphasise how the possible presence of VBNC pathogens can pose a serious risk to public health. As reported by Nicolò and Guglielmino [113], 20% of illnesses can be associated with well-known pathogens, but the other 80% are caused by unspecified or unidentified agents, suggesting that pathogens in the VBNC state might be neglected during most outbreaks because of their non-detectability. Considering that cold and frozen storage are the most common methods applied for the preservation of seafood products, more data on the presence of VBNC forms of Vibrio in frozen products are needed. Additionally, studies about the presence of VBNC Vibrio in seafood that are preserved differently, such as in increasingly popular ethnic seafood [114], are required. In fact, Vibrio spp., including V. parahaemolyticus, were isolated from dried seafood [29,30,115] and it was demonstrated that VBNC forms of V. parahaemolyticus are resistant not only to cold temperatures but also to other stressors, such as heat, acidity, and low salinity [57].

5. Conclusions

The detection of VBNC bacteria appears crucial to avoid false-positive or false-negative results at the industrial food production level. Underestimating the product safety profile can lead to serious consequences, since the occurrence of pathogenic species in food can result in serious outbreaks, and the potential re-growth of VBNC microorganisms could lead to a reduction in shelf life. Although the presence of VBNC bacteria is well reported, to our knowledge, this is the first study to report the presence of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in commercial frozen bivalve molluscs. The positive results detected only for clams are probably linked to several factors, such as the harvesting method, initial contamination of the product during shelling operations, and seasonality. Our results show that PMA-qPCR can be considered as a fast and reliable method for the detection of VBNC pathogenic bacteria in food or during food processing, representing a useful tool for a more realistic risk assessment of V. parahaemolyticus in seafood products. Further studies are needed to acquire data about the prevalence of viable but non culturable V. parahaemolyticus in frozen bivalve molluscs and other seafood stored by cold or other preserving methods that could facilitate the development of VBNC forms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: E.D.S. and A.P.; Methodology: E.D.S. and G.Z.; Investigation: E.D.S. and G.Z.; Visualization: E.D.S., F.P., A.P. and G.Z.; Data Curation: E.D.S. and F.P.; Writing—original draft: E.D.S., F.P., A.P. and G.Z.; Writing—review and editing: F.P.; Resources: E.D.S., F.P., A.P. and G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ansaruzzaman, M.; Lucas, M.; Deen, J.L.; Bhuiyan, N.A.; Wang, X.Y.; Safa, A.; Sultana, M.; Chowdhury, A.; Balakrish Nair, G.; Sack, D.A.; et al. Pandemic Serovars (O3:K6 and O4:K68) of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Associated with Diarrhea in Mozambique: Spread of the Pandemic into the African Continent. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 2559–2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Su, Y.C.; Liu, C. Vibrio parahaemolyticus: A Concern of Seafood Safety. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Balter, S.; Hanson, H.; Kornstein, L.; Lee, L.; Reddy, V.; Sahl, S. Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infections Associated with Consumption of Raw Shellfish—Three States, 2006. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2006, 55, 854–857. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sferlazzo, G.; Meloni, D.; Lamon, S.; Marceddu, M.; Mureddu, A.; Consolati, S.G.; Pisanu, M.; Virgilio, S. Evaluation of Short Purification Cycles in Naturally Contaminated Mediterranean Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) Harvested in Sardinia (Italy). Food Microbiol. 2018, 74, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Murphree, R.L.; Tamplin, M.L. Uptake and Retention of Vibrio Cholerae O1 in the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea Virginica. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1991, 61, 3656–3660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yoon, J.H.; Bae, Y.M.; Lee, S.Y. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Sodium Chloride and Acidic Conditions on the Behavior of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio Vulnificus Cold-Starved in Artificial Sea Water Microcosms. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 26, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jiang, Y.; Chu, Y.; Xie, G.; Li, F.; Wang, L.; Huang, J.; Zhai, Y.; Yao, L. Antimicrobial Resistance, Virulence and Genetic Relationship of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Seafood from Coasts of Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea, China. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 290, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Daniels, N.A.; Mackinnon, L.; Bishop, R.; Altekruse, S.; Ray, B.; Hammond, R.M.; Thompson, S.; Wilson, S.; Bean, N.H.; Griffin, P.M.; et al. Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infections in the United States, 1973–1998. J. Infect. Dis. 2000, 181, 1661–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Feldhusen, F. The role of seafood in bacterialfoodborne diseases. Microbes Infect. 2000, 2, 1651–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lozano-León, A.; Torres, J.; Osorio, C.R.; Martínez-Urtaza, J. Identification of Tdh-Positive Vibrio parahaemolyticus from an Outbreak Associated with Raw Oyster Consumption in Spain. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2003, 226, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martinez-Urtaza, J.; Lozano-Leon, A.; DePaola, A.; Ishibashi, M.; Shimada, K.; Nishibuchi, M.; Liebana, E. Characterization of Pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolates from Clinical Sources in Spain and Comparison with Asian and North American Pandemic Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 4672–4678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Martinez-Urtaza, J.; Powell, A.; Jansa, J.; Rey, J.L.C.; Montero, O.P.; Campello, M.G.; López, M.J.Z.; Pousa, A.; Valles, M.J.F.; Trinanes, J.; et al. Epidemiological Investigation of a Foodborne Outbreak in Spain Associated with U.S. West Coast Genotypes of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Springerplus 2016, 5, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Baker-Austin, C.; Stockley, L.; Rangdale, R.; Martinez-Urtaza, J. Environmental Occurrence and Clinical Impact of Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus: A European Perspective. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2010, 2, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European Union One Health 2020 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. European Commission (EC). Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs; European Commission (EC): Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. Savichtcheva, O.; Okabe, S. Alternative Indicators of Fecal Pollution: Relations with Pathogens and Conventional Indicators, Current Methodologies for Direct Pathogen Monitoring and Future Application Perspectives. Water Res. 2006, 40, 2463–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Suffredini, E.; Mioni, R.; Mazzette, R.; Bordin, P.; Serratore, P.; Fois, F.; Piano, A.; Cozzi, L.; Croci, L. Detection and Quantification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shellfish from Italian Production Areas. Int. J. Food. Microbiol. 2014, 184, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bonnin-Jusserand, M.; Copin, S.; Bris, C.L.; Brauge, T.; Gay, M.; Brisabois, A.; Grard, T.; Midelet-Bourdin, G. Vibrio Species Involved in Seafood-Borne Outbreaks (Vibrio cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus): Review of Microbiological versus Recent Molecular Detection Methods in Seafood Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Boutin, B.K.; Reyes, A.L.; Peeler, J.T.; Twedt, R.M. Effect of Temperature and Suspending Vehicle on Survival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus. J. Food Prot. 1985, 48, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bryan, P.J.; Steffan, R.J.; Depaola, A.; Foster, J.W.; Bej, A.K. Adaptive Response to Cold Temperatures in Vibrio vulnificus. Curr. Microbiol. 1999, 38, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Howard, C.; Johnson, J.L. Sensitivity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus to Cold in Oysters, Fish Fillets and Crabmeat. J. Food Sci. 1973, 38, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shen, X.; Cai, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, W.; Hui, Y.; Su, Y.C. Effect of Temperature on Uptake and Survival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Oysters (Crassostrea plicatula). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 136, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Telli, A.E.; Doğruer, Y. Discrimination of Viable and Dead Vibrio parahaemolyticus Subjected to Low Temperatures Using Propidium Monoazide—Quantitative Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (PMA-QLAMP) and PMA-QPCR. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 132, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vasudevan, P.; Marek, P.; Daigle, S.; Hoagland, T.; Venkitanarayanan’, K.S. Effect of Chilling and Freezing on Survival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus on Fish Fillets. J. Food Saf. 2002, 22, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wong, H.-C.; Chen, L.-L.; Yu, C.-M. Survival of psychrotrophic Vibrio mimicus, Vibrio fluvialis and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in culture broth at low temperatures. J. Food Prot. 1994, 57, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Caburlotto, G.; Bianchi, F.; Gennari, M.; Ghidini, V.; Socal, G.; Aubry, F.B.; Bastianini, M.; Tafi, M.C.; Lleo, M.M. Integrated Evaluation of Environmental Parameters Influencing Vibrio Occurrence in the Coastal Northern Adriatic Sea (Italy) Facing the Venetian Lagoon. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 63, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tang, J.Y.H.; Wan-Rosli, W.F.; Abdul-Razak, N.H.; Yeo, C.C.; Bakar, C.A.; Son, R. Incidence and antibiogram of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in processed and frozen bivalve mollusks in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. Int. Food Res. J. 2014, 21, 1349. [Google Scholar]
  28. Panebianco, A.; Ruolo, A.; Giarratana, F.; Ziino, G. Occurrence of halophilic vibrions in frozen bivalve molluscs from retail outlets. LXV Annu. Meet. Ital. Soc. Vet. Sci. 2011, 93, 341–343. [Google Scholar]
  29. Xu, X.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, S.; Wu, K. Prevalence, Pathogenicity, and Serotypes of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shrimp from Chinese Retail Markets. Food Control 2014, 46, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, Z.Q.; Jiao, X.A.; Zhou, X.H.; Cao, G.X.; Fang, W.M.; Gu, R.X. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus from Fresh, Low-Temperature Preserved, Dried, and Salted Seafood Products in Two Coastal Areas of Eastern China. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 125, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singleton, F.L.; Attwell, R.; Jangi, S.; Colwell, R.R. Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Vibrio Cholerae Growth. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1982, 44, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huq, A.; West’, P.A.; Small, E.B.; Imdadul Huq, M.; Colwell’, R.R. Influence of Water Temperature, Salinity, and PH on Survival and Growth of Toxigenic Vibrio Cholerae Serovar 01 Associated with Live Copepods in Laboratory Microcosms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1984, 48, 420–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tamplin, M.L.; Colwell, R.R. Effects of Microcosm Salinity and Organic Substrate Concentration on Production of Vibrio cholerae Enterotoxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1986, 52, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Amako, K.; Shimodori, S.; Imoto, T.; Miake, S.; Umeda’, A. Effects of Chitin and Its Soluble Derivatives on Survival of Vibrio cholerae 01 at Low Temperature. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987, 53, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Karunasagar, I.; Venugopal, M.N.; Karunasagar, I.; Segar, K. Role of Chitin in the Survival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus at Different Temperatures. Can. J. Microbiol. 1986, 32, 889–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, C.; Lu, J.; Su, Y.-C. Effects of flash freezing, followed by frozen storage, on reducing Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Pacific raw oysters (Crassostrea gigas). J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 174–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yoon, J.H.; Moon, S.K.; Choi, C.; Ryu, B.Y.; Lee, S.Y. Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus Induced by Prolonged Cold-Starvation Using Propidium Monoazide Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wagley, S.; Morcrette, H.; Kovacs-Simon, A.; Yang, Z.R.; Power, A.; Tennant, R.K.; Love, J.; Murray, N.; Titball, R.W.; Butler, C.S. Bacterial Dormancy: A Subpopulation of Viable but Non-Culturable Cells Demonstrates Better Fitness for Revival. PLoS Pathog. 2021, 17, e1009194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oliver, J.D. The Viable but Nonculturable State in Bacteria. J. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Zhao, X.; Zhong, J.; Wei, C.; Lin, C.W.; Ding, T. Current Perspectives on Viable but Non-Culturable State in Foodborne Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dong, K.; Pan, H.; Yang, D.; Rao, L.; Zhao, L.; Wang, Y.; Liao, X. Induction, Detection, Formation, and Resuscitation of Viable but Non-Culturable State Microorganisms. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 149–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cole, K.M.; Supan, J.; Ramirez, A.; Johnson, C.N. Suspension of Oysters Reduces the Populations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ferro, S.; Amorico, T.; Deo, P. Role of Food Sanitising Treatments in Inducing the ‘Viable but Nonculturable’ State of Microorganisms. Food Control 2018, 91, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schottroff, F.; Fröhling, A.; Zunabovic-Pichler, M.; Krottenthaler, A.; Schlüter, O.; Jäger, H. Sublethal Injury and Viable but Non-Culturable (VBNC) State in Microorganisms during Preservation of Food and Biological Materials by Non-Thermal Processes. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Shamloei, S.; Nabavi-Rad, A.; Nazem, H.; Yadegar, A. Current Perspectives on Viable but Non-Culturable Bacteria in Food Safety and Public Health. Avicenna J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 9, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ayrapetyan, M.; Oliver, J.D. The Viable but Non-Culturable State and Its Relevance in Food Safety. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016, 8, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gao, R.; Liao, X.; Zhao, X.; Liu, D.; Ding, T. The Diagnostic Tools for Viable but Nonculturable Pathogens in the Food Industry: Current Status and Future Prospects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2146–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. İzgördü, Ö.K.; Darcan, C.; Kariptaş, E. Overview of VBNC, a Survival Strategy for Microorganisms. 3 Biotech 2022, 12, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Vattakaven, T.; Bond, P.; Bradley, G.; Munn, C.B. Differential Effects of Temperature and Starvation on Induction of the Viable-but-Nonculturable State in the Coral Pathogens Vibrio shiloi and Vibrio tasmaniensis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 6508–6513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oliver, J.D. Recent Findings on the Viable but Nonculturable State in Pathogenic Bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2010, 34, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, L.; Mendis, N.; Trigui, H.; Oliver, J.D.; Faucher, S.P. The Importance of the Viable but Non-Culturable State in Human Bacterial Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yoon, J.H.; Bae, Y.M.; Jo, S.; Moon, S.K.; Oh, S.W.; Lee, S.Y. Optimization of Resuscitation-Promoting Broths for the Revival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus from a Viable but Nonculturable State. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 30, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baffone, W.; Citterio, B.; Vittoria, E.; Casaroli, A.; Campana, R.; Falzano, L.; Donelli, G. Retention of Virulence in Viable but Non-Culturable Halophilic Vibrio Spp. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 89, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, X.H.; Ahmad, W.; Zhu, X.Y.; Chen, J.; Austin, B. Viable but Nonculturable Bacteria and Their Resuscitation: Implications for Cultivating Uncultured Marine Microorganisms. Mar. Life Sci. Technol. 2021, 3, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pan, H.; Ren, Q. Wake Up! Resuscitation of Viable but Nonculturable Bacteria: Mechanism and Potential Application. Foods 2023, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, B.; Liang, W.; Kan, B. Enumeration of Viable Non-Culturable Vibrio cholerae Using Propidium Monoazide Combined with Quantitative PCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 2015, 115, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wong, H.C.; Wang, P. Induction of Viable but Nonculturable State in Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Its Susceptibility to Environmental Stresses. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 96, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nocker, A.; Cheung, C.Y.; Camper, A.K. Comparison of Propidium Monoazide with Ethidium Monoazide for Differentiation of Live vs. Dead Bacteria by Selective Removal of DNA from Dead Cells. J. Microbiol. Methods 2006, 67, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sheet, O.H.; Grabowski, N.T.; Klein, G.; Abdulmawjood, A. Development and Validation of a Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Assay for the Detection of Staphylococcus aureus in Bovine Mastitis Milk Samples. Mol. Cell Probes 2016, 30, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Xiao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, X.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y. Development of a Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assay for Viable salmonella Spp. without Enrichment. Food Control 2015, 57, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yoon, J.H.; Wei, S.; Oh, D.H. A Highly Selective Enrichment Broth Combined with Real-Time PCR for Detection of Staphylococcus aureus in Food Samples. LWT 2018, 94, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cao, X.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, J.; Chen, X.; Shi, L.; Fang, X.; Xie, H.; Chang, Y.; Wang, L. Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shrimp Samples Using Improved Real-Time PCR and Real-Time LAMP Methods. Food Control 2019, 103, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ling, N.; Shen, J.; Guo, J.; Zeng, D.; Ren, J.; Sun, L.; Jiang, Y.; Xue, F.; Dai, J.; Li, B. Rapid and Accurate Detection of Viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus by Sodium Deoxycholate-Propidium Monoazide-QPCR in Shrimp. Food Control 2020, 109, 106883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, Y.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, J.; Lei, S. Enumeration of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in VBNC State by PMA-Combined Real-Time Quantitative PCR Coupled with Confirmation of Respiratory Activity. Food Control 2018, 91, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhong, Q.; Tian, J.; Wang, B.; Wang, L. PMA Based Real-Time Fluorescent LAMP for Detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Viable but Nonculturable State. Food Control 2016, 63, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhu, R.G.; Li, T.P.; Jia, Y.F.; Song, L.F. Quantitative Study of Viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus Cells in Raw Seafood Using Propidium Monoazide in Combination with Quantitative PCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 2012, 90, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhao, L.; Lv, X.; Cao, X.; Zhang, J.; Gu, X.; Zeng, H.; Wang, L. Improved Quantitative Detection of VBNC Vibrio parahaemolyticus Using Immunomagnetic Separation and PMAxx-QPCR. Food Control 2020, 110, 106962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fittipaldi, M.; Nocker, A.; Codony, F. Progress in Understanding Preferential Detection of Live Cells Using Viability Dyes in Combination with DNA Amplification. J. Microbiol. Methods 2012, 91, 276–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kobayashi, H.; Oethinger, M.; Tuohy, M.J.; Hall, G.S.; Bauer, T.W. Improving Clinical Significance of PCR: Use of Propidium Monoazide to Distinguish Viable from Dead Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J. Orthop. Res. 2009, 27, 1243–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yang, X.; Badoni, M.; Gill, C.O. Use of Propidium Monoazide and Quantitative PCR for Differentiation of Viable Escherichia Coli from E. Coli Killed by Mild or Pasteurizing Heat Treatments. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 1478–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lee, J.L.; Levin, R.E. A Comparative Study of the Ability of EMA and PMA to Distinguish Viable from Heat Killed Mixed Bacterial Flora from Fish Fillets. J. Microbiol. Methods 2009, 76, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dinu, L.D.; Bach, S. Detection of Viable but Non-Culturable Escherichia coli O157: H7 from Vegetable Samples Using Quantitative PCR with Propidium Monoazide and Immunological Assays. Food Control 2013, 31, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Xiao, X.; Tian, C.; Yu, Y.; Wu, H. Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Escherichia coli O157:H7 Using Propidium Monoazide Treatments and QPCR. Can. J. Microbiol. 2013, 59, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lv, X.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, H.; Chen, X.; Shi, L.; Cui, H.; He, X.; Zhao, L. Rapid and Sensitive Detection of VBNC Escherichia coli O157: H7 in Beef by PMAxx and Real-Time LAMP. Food Control 2020, 115, 107292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, H.-N.; Hou, P.-B.; Chen, Y.-Z.; Ma, Y.; Li, X.-P.; Lv, H.; Wang, M.; Tan, H.-L.; Bi, Z.-W. Prevalence of Foodborne Pathogens in Cooked Meat and Seafood from 2010 to 2013 in Shandong Province, China. Iran. J. Public Health 2016, 45, 1577. [Google Scholar]
  76. El-Aziz, N.K.A.; Tartor, Y.H.; El-Aziz Gharib, A.A.; Ammar, A.M. Propidium Monoazide Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for Enumeration of Some Viable but Nonculturable Foodborne Bacteria in Meat and Meat Products. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2018, 15, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rowan, N.J. Viable but Non-Culturable Forms of Food and Waterborne Bacteria: Quo Vadis? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 15, 462–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fakruddin, M.; Mannan, K.S.B.; Andrews, S. Viable but Nonculturable Bacteria: Food Safety and Public Health Perspective. ISRN Microbiol. 2013, 2013, 703813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. EN ISO 21872-1: 2017; Microbiology of the Food Chian-Horizontal Method for the Determination of Vibrio spp. Part 1: Detection of Potentially Enteropathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio vulnificus. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  80. Bej, A.K.; Patterson, D.P.; Brasher, C.W.; Vickery, M.C.L.; Jones, D.D.; Kaysner, C.A. Detection of Total and Hemoly-sin-Producing Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shellfish Using Multiplex PCR Amplification of Tl, Tdh and Trh. J. Microbiol. Methods 1999, 36, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Rasmussen, R. Quantification on the LightCycler. In Rapid Cycle Real-Time PCR; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 21–34. [Google Scholar]
  82. Caraguel, C.G.B.; Stryhn, H.; Gagné, N.; Dohoo, I.R.; Hammell, K.L. Selection of a Cutoff Value for Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Results to Fit a Diagnostic Purpose: Analytical and Epidemiologic Approaches. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2011, 23, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Kim, Y.B.; Okuda, J.U.N.; Matsumoto, C.; Takahashi, N.; Hashimoto, S.; Nishibuchi, M. Identification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Strains at the Species Level by PCR Targeted to the ToxR Gene. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 1173–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tada, J.; Ohashi, T.; Nishimura, N.; Shirasaki, Y.; Ozaki, H.; Fukushima, S.; Takano, J.; Nishibuchi, M.; Takeda, Y. Detection of the Thermostable Direct Hemolysin Gene (Tdh) and the Thermostable Direct Hemolysin-Related Hemolysin Gene (Trh) of Vibrio parahaemolyticus by Polymerase Chain Reaction. Mol. Cell Probes 1992, 6, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lee, C.-Y.; Pan, S.-F.; Chen, C.-H. Sequence of a Cloned PR72H Fragment and Its Use for Detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shellfish with the PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 1995, 61, 1311–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Venkateswaran, K.; Dohmoto, N.; Harayama, S. Cloning and Nucleotide Sequence of the GyrB Gene of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Its Application in Detection of This Pathogen in Shrimp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Makino, K.; Oshima, K.; Kurokawa, K.; Yokoyama, K.; Uda, T.; Tagomori, K.; Iijima, Y.; Najima, M.; Nakano, M.; Yamashita, A.; et al. Genome Sequence of Vibrio parahaemolyticus: A Pathogenic Mechanism Distinct from That of V Cholerae. Lancet 2003, 361, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Jones, J.L.; Lüdeke, C.H.M.; Bowers, J.C.; Garrett, N.; Fischer, M.; Parsons, M.B.; Bopp, C.A.; DePaola, A. Biochemical, Serological, and Virulence Characterization of Clinical and Oyster Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 2343–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nocker, A.; Camper, A.K. Novel Approaches toward Preferential Detection of Viable Cells Using Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2009, 291, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lv, R.; Wang, K.; Feng, J.; Heeney, D.D.; Liu, D.; Lu, X. Detection and Quantification of Viable but Non-Culturable Campylobacter Jejuni. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, R.; Zhong, Y.; Gu, X.; Yuan, J.; Saeed, A.F.; Wang, S. The Pathogenesis, Detection, and Prevention of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chahorm, K.; Prakitchaiwattana, C. Application of Reverse Transcriptase-PCR-DGGE as a Rapid Method for Routine Determination of Vibrio Spp. in Foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 264, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shimodori, S.; Moriya, T.; Kohashi, O.; Faming, D.; Amako, K. Extraction from Prawn Shells of Substances Cryoprotective for Vibrio Cholerae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 2726–2728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bang, W.; Drake, M.A. Resistance of cold-and starvation-stressed Vibrio vulnificus to heat and freeze-thaw exposure. J. Food Prot. 2002, 65, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Brown, M.; Johnston, M.D. An Investigation into the Changed Physiological State of Vibrio Bacteria as a Survival Mechanism in Response to Cold Temperatures and Studies on Their Sensitivity to Heating and Freezing. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002, 92, 1066–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yu, H.; Fang, J.; Ma, B.; Li, J.; Zhang, M. One Real-Time Fluorescent Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Combined with Propidium Monoazide for Detection of Viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Seafood. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 15, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Niu, B.; Hong, B.; Zhang, Z.; Mu, L.; Malakar, P.K.; Liu, H.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y. A Novel QPCR Method for Simultaneous Detection and Quantification of Viable Pathogenic and Non-Pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Tlh+, Tdh+, and UreR+). Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Randazzo, W.; Khezri, M.; Ollivier, J.; Le Guyader, F.S.; Rodríguez-Díaz, J.; Aznar, R.; Sánchez, G. Optimization of PMAxx Pretreatment to Distinguish between Human Norovirus with Intact and Altered Capsids in Shellfish and Sewage Samples. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Bouju-Albert, A.; Saltaji, S.; Dousset, X.; Prévost, H.; Jaffrès, E. Quantification of Viable Brochothrix Thermosphacta in Cold-Smoked Salmon Using PMA/PMAxx-QPCR. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 654178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lamon, S.; Bastardo, A.; Meloni, D.; Consolati, S.G.; Fois, F.; Porcheddu, G.; Agus, V.; Pes, M.; Cambula, M.G.; Mureddu, A.; et al. Clonal Relationship among Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolated from Mediterranean Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) and Grooved Carpet Shells (Ruditapes decussatus) Harvested in Sardinia (Italy). Food Microbiol. 2019, 84, 103258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bacian, C.; Verdugo, C.; García, K.; Perez-Larruscain, J.; de Blas, I.; Cachicas, V.; Lopez-Joven, C. Longitudinal Study of Total and Pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Tdh+ and/or Trh+) in Two Natural Extraction Areas of Mytilus Chilensis in Southern Chile. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 621737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lamon, S.; Consolati, S.G.; Fois, F.; Cambula, M.G.; Pes, M.; Porcheddu, G.; Agus, V.; Esposito, G.; Mureddu, A.; Meloni, D. Occurrence, Seasonal Distribution, and Molecular Characterization of Vibrio vulnificus, Vibrio cholerae, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Shellfish (Mytilus galloprovincialis and Ruditapes decussatus) Collected in Sardinia (Italy). J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 1851–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lopatek, M.; Wieczorek, K.; Osek, J. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolated from Raw Shellfish in Poland. J. Food Prot. 2015, 78, 1029–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Roque, A.; Lopez-Joven, C.; Lacuesta, B.; Elandaloussi, L.; Wagley, S.; Furones, M.D.; Ruiz-Zarzuela, I.; De Blas, I.; Rangdale, R.; Gomez-Gil, B. Detection and Identification of Tdh- And Trh-Positive Vibrio parahaemolyticus Strains from Four Species of Cultured Bivalve Molluscs on the Spanish Mediterranean Coast. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7574–7577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Johnson, C.N.; Bowers, J.C.; Griffitt, K.J.; Molina, V.; Clostio, R.W.; Pei, S.; Laws, E.; Paranjpye, R.N.; Strom, M.S.; Chen, A.; et al. Ecology of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus in the Coastal and Estuarine Waters of Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Washington (United States). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 7249–7257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Froelich, B.; Oliver, J. Increases in the Amounts of Vibrio Spp. in Oysters upon Addition of Exogenous Bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 5208–5213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Randa, M.A.; Polz, M.F.; Lim, E. Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Vibrio vulnificus Population Dynamics as Assessed by Quantitative PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5469–5476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Motes, M.L.; Depaola, A.; Cook, D.W.; Veazey, J.E.; Hunsucker, J.C.; Garthright, W.E.; Blodgett, R.J.; Chirtel, S.J. Influence of water temperature and salinity on Vibrio vulnificus in Northern Gulf and Atlantic Coast oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 1459–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Wolf, P.W.; Oliver, J.D. Temperature Effects on the Viable but Non-culturable State of Vibrio vulnificus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1992, 101, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Makino, S.-I.; Kii, T.; Asakura, H.; Shirahata, T.; Ikeda, T.; Takeshi, K.; Itoh, K. Does Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 Enter the Viable but Nonculturable State in Salted Salmon Roe? Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 5536–5539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Asakura, H.; Panutdaporn, N.; Kawamoto, K.; Igimi, S.; Yamamoto, S.; Makino, S.I. Proteomic characterization of enter-ohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157: H7 in the oxidation-induced viable but non-culturable state. Microbiol. Immunol. 2007, 51, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aurass, P.; Prager, R.; Flieger, A. EHEC/EAEC O104:H4 Strain Linked with the 2011 German Outbreak of Haemolytic Uremic Syndrome Enters into the Viable but Non-Culturable State in Response to Various Stresses and Resuscitates upon Stress Relief. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 3139–3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Nicolò, M.S.; Guglielmino, S.P.P. Viable but nonculturable bacteria in food. In Public Health–Methodology, Environmental and Systems Issues; Maddock, J., Ed.; InTech: Rjeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 189–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Panebianco, F.; Nava, V.; Giarratana, F.; Gervasi, T.; Cicero, N. Assessment of Heavy- and Semi-Metals Contamination in Edible Seaweed and Dried Fish Sold in Ethnic Food Stores on the Italian Market. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 104, 104150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Panebianco, F.; Giusti, A.; Giarratana, F.; Armani, A. Ethnic Seafood Products Sold on the Italian Market: Labelling Assessment and Biological, Chemical and Physical Risk Characterization. Food Control 2019, 105, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 12 02373 g001
Figure 1. Mean standard curve obtained for V. parahaemolyticus ATCC 17802.
Figure 1. Mean standard curve obtained for V. parahaemolyticus ATCC 17802.
Foods 12 02373 g001
Table 1. Characteristics and label information of frozen bivalve molluscs analysed in this study.
Table 1. Characteristics and label information of frozen bivalve molluscs analysed in this study.
Sample IDSpeciesTypeFAO Fishing AreaSampling Date
1Paphia undulatashelled clams7110 February 2020
2Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8710 February 2020
3Paphia undulatashelled clams7110 February 2020
4Mytilus chilensishalf shell mussels8710 February 2020
5Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8710 February 2020
6Chamelea gallinashelled clams7110 February 2020
7Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8710 February 2020
8Paphia undulatashelled clams7110 February 2020
9Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8716 March 2020
10Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8716 March 2020
11Paphia undulatashelled clams7116 March 2020
12Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8716 March 2020
13Paphia undulatawhole shell clams7116 March 2020
14Chamelea gallinashelled clams3716 March 2020
15Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8716 March 2020
16Chamelea gallinashelled clams7116 March 2020
17Chamelea gallinashelled clams7116 March 2020
18Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8720 April 2020
19Chamelea gallinashelled clams7120 April 2020
20Paphia textileshelled clams6120 April 2020
21Chamelea gallinashelled clams7120 April 2020
22Paphia textileshelled clams6120 April 2020
23Chamelea gallinashelled clams7120 April 2020
24Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8720 April 2020
25Chamelea gallinashelled clams7120 April 2020
26Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8720 April 2020
27Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8722 June 2020
28Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8722 June 2020
29Meretix lyratawhole shell clams6122 June 2020
30Paphia undulatashelled clams7122 June 2020
31Mytilus chilensiswhole shell mussels8722 June 2020
32Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8722 June 2020
33Paphia undulatashelled clams7122 June 2020
34Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8722 June 2020
35Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8727 July 2020
36Paphia undulatashelled clams7127 July 2020
37Paphia textilewhole shell clams6127 July 2020
38Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8727 July 2020
39Paphia undulatashelled clams7127 July 2020
40Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8727 July 2020
41Paphia textileshelled clams3727 July 2020
42Paphia textileshelled clams6127 July 2020
43Paphia textileshelled clams6127 July 2020
44Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels877 September 2020
45Paphia undulatashelled clams717 September 2020
46Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels877 September 2020
47Chamelea gallinashelled clams717 September 2020
48Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels877 September 2020
49Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels877 September 2020
50Meretrix meretrixwhole shell clams617 September 2020
51Paphia undulatashelled clams717 September 2020
52Paphia undulatashelled clams7113 October 2020
53Mytilus chilensiswhole shell mussels8713 October 2020
54Meretrix lyratawhole shell clams6113 October 2020
55Paphia undulatashelled clams7113 October 2020
56Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8713 October 2020
57Paphia textileshelled clams6113 October 2020
58Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8713 October 2020
59Meretrix lyratashelled clams6113 October 2020
60Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8713 October 2020
61Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8714 December 2020
62Chamelea gallinashelled clams7114 December 2020
63Chamelea gallinashelled clams7114 December 2020
64Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8714 December 2020
65Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8714 December 2020
66Chamelea gallinashelled clams7114 December 2020
67Chamelea gallinashelled clams7114 December 2020
68Paphia textileshelled clams6114 December 2020
69Meretrix lyratawhole shell clams6111 January 2021
70Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8711 January 2021
71Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8711 January 2021
72Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8711 January 2021
73Paphia textileshelled clams6111 January 2021
74Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8711 January 2021
75Mytilus chilensisshelled mussels8711 January 2021
76Paphia textileshelled clams6111 January 2021
77Meretrix meretrixwhole shell clams6111 January 2021
Table 2. Stains used in the present study and qPCR results.
Table 2. Stains used in the present study and qPCR results.
No.SpeciesStrainSourceqPCR Result
1V. parahaemolyticusATCC 17802Shirasu food poisoning, Japan+
2V. parahaemolyticusATCC 33847human clinical isolate+
3V. parahaemolyticusCCUG 43363unknown+
4V. parahaemolyticusMELAB 772mussels+
5V. parahaemolyticusMELAB 777mussels+
6V. parahaemolyticusMELAB 778mussels+
7V. parahaemolyticusMELAB 547fish+
8V. alginolyticusATCC 17749fish−
9V. vulnificusATCC 27562blood−
10V. choleraeCCUG 37531unknown−
11V. mimicusCCUG 13624human clinical isolate−
12A. hydrophilaATCC 7966Ttin of milk with fishy odor−
13A. molluscorumCECT 5864wedge shells−
14A. sobriaCECT 4245Tfish−
15E. coliATCC 8739feces−
16L. monocytogenesATCC 13932human clinical isolate−
17P. aeruginosaATCC 15442water−
ATCC: American type culture collection. CCUG: Culture collection University of Gothenburg. MELAB: Food Microbiology Lab of Veterinary Sciences Department (Messina, Italy). CECT: Spanish Type Culture Collection.
Table 3. Samples positive to qPCR and PMA-qPCR and relative CT and Log CFU/g values.
Table 3. Samples positive to qPCR and PMA-qPCR and relative CT and Log CFU/g values.
Sample
ID		TypeSpeciesFAO Fishing AreaSampling PeriodPlate CountCT ValuesLog CFU/g Predicted
qPCR (Dead + VBNC)PMA-qPCR (VBNC)qPRC (Dead + VBNC)PMA-qPCR (VBNC)
6shelled clamsChamelea gallina71February 2020UD29.05 aUD3.79 aUD
8shelled clamsPaphia undulata71March 2020UD31.18 b34.54 a3.12 b2.05 a
11shelled clamsPaphia undulata71March 2020UD29.26 c35.1 b3.73 c1.87 b
16shelled clamsChamelea gallina71March 2020UD32.08 d35.73 c2.83 d1.67 c
19shelled clamsChamelea gallina71April 2020UD33.37 e34.74 d2.42 e1.99 d
20shelled clamsPaphia textile61April 2020UD30.21 f33.78 e3.42 f2.29 e
23shelled clamsChamelea gallina71April 2020UD35.21 gUD1.84 gUD
33shelled clamsPaphia undulata71June 2020UD29.74 h35.58 f3.57 h1.72 f
36shelled clamsPaphia undulata71July 2020UD32.86 iUD2.58 iUD
45shelled clamsPaphia undulata71September 2020UD27.32 l34.62 g4.34 l2.03 a
51shelled clamsPaphia undulata71September 2020UD35.67 mUD1.69 mUD
62shelled clamsChamelea gallina71December 2020UD35.59 nUD1.72 nUD
63shelled clamsChamelea gallina71December 2020UD31.19 b35.51 h3.11 b1.74 f
66shelled clamsChamelea gallina71December 2020UD33.65 o35.48 i2.33 o1.75 fg
UD = Undetected. Values followed by different superscript letters in the same column are significantly different (ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison; p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Salvo, E.; Panebianco, F.; Panebianco, A.; Ziino, G. Quantitative Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Frozen Bivalve Molluscs. Foods 2023, 12, 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122373

AMA Style

Di Salvo E, Panebianco F, Panebianco A, Ziino G. Quantitative Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Frozen Bivalve Molluscs. Foods. 2023; 12(12):2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Salvo, Eleonora, Felice Panebianco, Antonio Panebianco, and Graziella Ziino. 2023. "Quantitative Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Frozen Bivalve Molluscs" Foods 12, no. 12: 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122373

APA Style

Di Salvo, E., Panebianco, F., Panebianco, A., & Ziino, G. (2023). Quantitative Detection of Viable but Nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Frozen Bivalve Molluscs. Foods, 12(12), 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop