Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Risk Mitigation of E. coli O157 and its Intimin (eaeA) and Shiga Toxin (stx2) Gene Expression in Chilled Chicken Fillets Using Chitosan Nanoparticle Loaded with Lysozyme

Risk Mitigation of E. coli O157 and its Intimin (eaeA) and Shiga Toxin (stx2) Gene Expression in Chilled Chicken Fillets Using Chitosan Nanoparticle Loaded with Lysozyme

Aalaa S. Saad1*, Amira A. Elokle2, Dalia Y. Youssef2, Neven M. Omara2, Samr Kassem3

1Biotechnology Department, Animal Health Research Institute (AHRI), Agriculture Research Center (ARC), Egypt; 2Reference Lab for Examination of Food of Animal Origin, Food Hygiene Department, Animal Health Research Institute (AHRI), Agriculture Research Center (ARC), Egypt; 3Nanomaterials Research and Synthesis Unit, Animal Health Research Institute (AHRI), Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Giza, Egypt. 

 
*Correspondence | Aalaa S. Saad, Biotechnology Department, Animal Health Research Institute (AHRI), Agriculture Research Center (ARC), Egypt; Email: alaa.samir87@yahoo.com

Figure 1:

Schematic illustration of the Experimental design.

Figure 2:

Characterization of blank CS-NPs and CS-LZ-NPs. (A1 and A2) particle size pattern of synthesized NPs showing (A1) size distribution of CS-NPs of 250 nm, (A2) size distribution of CS-LZ-NPs of 281 nm. (B1 and B2) TEM imaging of blank CS-NPs (B1) and CS-LZ-NPs (B2) showed consistent solid spherical nanoparticles without agglomeration and size ranged from 13.1 to 17.6 nm and 15.6 to 19.5 nm, Scale bar = 100 nm. (C) UV analyses of synthesized chitosan, chitosan lysozyme nanoparticles and lysozyme at wavelength range of 200-800 nm.

Figure 3:

(A) SRB cytotoxicity assay of blank CS-NPs and CS-LZ-NPs at different concentrations ranged from 50 to 450 µg/ml. (B) Encapsulation efficiency percent of CS-LZ-NPs at pH 4 with different concentration of lysozyme (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 mg/ml). (C) In vitro release study of CS-LZ-NPs with lysozyme concentration of 2.5 mg/ml prepared at pH 4.

Figure 4:

E. coli O157 viable count (log CFU/g) of chicken fillet treated with CS-NPs and CS-LZ-NPs and the control (untreated) at chilling preservation. Values are expressed as the mean ±SD. There are significant differences between points that have different letters on the same day of preservation.

Figure 5:

(A). Relative eaeA gene expression of E. coli O157 in chicken fillet treated with CS-NPs and CS-LZ-NPs at chilling preservation. Values are expressed as the mean ±SD. There are significant differences between points that have different letters on the same day of preservation. (B). Relative stx gene expression of E. coli O157 in chicken fillet treated with CS-NPs and CS- LZ-NPs at chilling preservation. Values are expressed as the mean ±SD. There are significant differences between points that have different letters on the same day of preservation

Figure 6:

The average score of taste, color, flavor, and overall acceptability of chicken fillets without CS-NPs and or CS-LZ-NPs, chicken fillets with CS-NPs, and chicken fillets with CS- LZ-NPs.

Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences

May

Vol. 12, Iss. 5, pp. 802-993

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe