STUDY OF BACTERIAL FLORA IN EASTERN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica) TREATED WITH HIGH PRESSURE Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ________________________________________ Naparat Prapaiwong Certificate of Approval: ___________________________ ___________________________ Yolanda J. Brady Covadonga R. Arias, Chair Associate Professor Associate Professor Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures ___________________________ ___________________________ Richard K. Wallace George T. Flowers Professor Interim Dean Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Graduate School STUDY OF BACTERIAL FLORA IN EASTERN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica) TREATED WITH HIGH PRESSURE Naparat Prapaiwong A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 10, 2008 iii STUDY OF BACTERIAL FLORA IN EASTERN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica) TREATED WITH HIGH PRESSURE Naparat Prapaiwong Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon the request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ___________________________ Signature of Author ___________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Naparat Prapaiwong, daughter of Paitoon and Somboon Prapaiwong, was born on December 2, 1969, in Songkhla, Thailand. She graduated from Tinsulanonda Fisheries College, Songkhla, Thailand with a Diploma of Vocational degree majoring in Aquaculture in 1990. She attended Rajamangala University of Technology, Bangpra Campus, Chonburi, Thailand and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree majoring in Fisheries in 1996. She is a fisheries biologist in The Department of Fisheries, Thailand. She entered Graduate School in the Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures at Auburn University in August 2005. v THESIS ABSTRACT STUDY OF BACTERIAL FLORA IN EASTERN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica) TREATED WITH HIGH PRESSURE Naparat Prapaiwong Master of Science, May 10, 2008 (B.Sc. Rajamangala University of Technology, Bangpra Campus, 1996) 104 Typed Pages Directed by Covadonga R. Arias Analysis of bacterial communities present in high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters was carried out independently during three different seasons: winter; summer; and fall of 2006. Oysters used in all experiments were supplied by Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. Bon Secour, AL. Determination of bacterial numbers and species diversity in each sample was conducted at 0, 7, 14, and 21 days of storage at 4 o C (high- pressure treated and raw oysters) and -20 o C (quick-frozen oysters). Results show that the numbers of total bacterial counts in treated oysters were significantly lower than in untreated oysters at day 0 in all samplings. Total numbers of aerobic bacteria in high-pressure treated oysters at day 0 were lower than 10 5 colony forming units (CFU)/g in every season whereas quick-frozen oysters maintained their vi levels between 10 4 and 10 6 CFU/g during the 21-day storage period regardless of the sampling season. However, total bacterial counts in quick-frozen oysters during this study were statistically different in all seasons (P<0.05). Season has significant influence on variation of total bacterial numbers in both treated and untreated oysters (P<0.05). An increase in the total number of bacterial counts in high-pressure treated oysters observed at day 7, 14, and 21 indicating that some bacteria can survive the treatment and can be proliferate during storage at 4 o C. High-pressure treated oysters presented lower total bacterial counts than raw oysters at the time oysters get to market. However, the recommended shelf-life for this product (3 weeks) seems to be too long based on the number of bacteria present in the oysters after 2 weeks under strict refrigeration. Sequencing of the 16S rDNA from bacterial isolates revealed seven different classes within the bacterial communities in oysters. The majority of the isolates were Gram-negative bacteria, with the Gammaproteobacteria class representing between 56% and 92% of all sequences. The remaining Gram-negative belonged the Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Flavobacteria and Sphingobacteria classes. Gram-positive bacteria included two classes: Actinobacteria and Bacilli. The most common bacterial genera found in this study were Shewanella, Vibrio and Psychrobacter. Four species of human pathogenic bacteria were also identified: V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and Aeromonas hydrophila. Vibrio vulnificus was identified only from untreated (raw) oysters. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude and obligation to my advisor, Dr. Covadonga R. Arias for providing me the opportunity to pursue research and obtain a Master degree in the US, as well as her guidance, suggestions and inspiring comments throughout my research. I am grateful for the time and expertise offered by my committee members, Dr. Yolanda J. Brady and Dr. Richard K. Wallace. I would also like to thank Mr. Chris Nelson, Vice President Oyster procurement, Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. for supplying all oyster samples used in this study. Help and support from administration staff in the Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures and friendship and encouragement extended to me by friends in the department is also gratefully acknowledged. I would like to apply my deep appreciation to my friends, Suttinee and Suwanit for their assistance, support, and encouragement during all aspects of this study. Most of all, the greatest thanks to my mother, sisters and brothers for their love, support, and encouragement during this study. viii Style manual or journal used: Applied and Environmental Microbiology Computer software used: Microsoft? Office Word 2003; Microsoft? Office Excel 2003; SigmaPlot 8.0; SAS 9.1.3; EndNote X ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................1 CHAPTER II. OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................16 CHAPTER III. ENUMERATION OF BACTERIA IN HIGH-PRESSURE TREATED, QUICK-FROZEN AND RAW OYSTERS......................................19 Abstract.................................................................................................................20 Introduction...........................................................................................................21 Materials and Methods .........................................................................................24 Results...................................................................................................................25 Discussion.............................................................................................................27 CHAPTER IV. BACTERIAL COMPOSITION AND SPECIES IDENTIFICATION IN COMERCIAL OYSTERS..............................................36 Abstract.................................................................................................................37 Introduction...........................................................................................................38 Materials and Methods .........................................................................................41 Results...................................................................................................................44 Discussion.............................................................................................................46 x GENERAL CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................65 CUMULATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................68 APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................89 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Experimental design for oyster sampling and bacterial enumeration.............18 Table 2. Winter sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high- pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period..................................................................................................30 Table 3. Summer sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high- pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period..................................................................................................31 Table 4. Fall sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period.......................32 Table 5. Identification of isolates recovered from high-pressure treated oysters.........49 Table 6. Identification of isolates recovered from quick-frozen oysters......................53 Table 7. Identification of isolates recovered from raw oysters. ...................................56 Table 8. Pathogenic bacteria recovered from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters versus total number of sequenced isolates............................61 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Winter sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. .............................33 Figure 2. Summer sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. .............................33 Figure 3. Fall sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. .............................34 Figure 4. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006....................................................34 Figure 5. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from quick-frozen oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006. .....................................................................35 Figure 6. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from raw oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006. .................................................................................35 Figure 7. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in winter 2006.................................................................................62 Figure 8. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in summer 2006..............................................................................62 xiii Figure 9. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in fall 2006......................................................................................62 Figure 10. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in winter 2006. ..................................................................................................63 Figure 11. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in summer 2006. ...............................................................................................63 Figure 12. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in fall 2006........................................................................................................63 Figure 13. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in winter 2006. ......64 Figure 14. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in summer 2006. ...64 Figure 15. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in fall 2006............64 1 I. LITERATURE REVIEW Oysters are animals that belong to the order Ostreoida, class Bivalvia, phylum Mollusca. They live in marine or brackish water environments where they provide habitat to numerous aquatic species. Oysters present a pronounced bilateral asymmetry typical of their class. Their internal organs are covered by a fleshy fold of tissue called mantle. A highly calcified shell surrounds their body with strong adductor muscles holding the shell closed to protect them from predators. Oysters are filter feeders that obtain food by using their gills to filter plankton, microorganisms, and suspended particles from the surrounding water. They are gonochoric organisms in which male and female are in separate individuals, however they may change sex one or more times during their life span. Typically, oysters mature during the first year as males that produce sperm for reproduction. After that period, they spend the next two to three years as females that can produce up to 100 million eggs per year (86). Oysters inhabit waters with a depth of 2.5 to 8 meters and tolerate temperatures between -2 and 32 o C. They usually attach to hard substrates encountered during the spat stage and live there for their whole life. Oysters provide habitat for other organisms such as anemones, hooked mussels, and barnacles. In addition, oysters have served as a food for humans for many centuries. Different species can be readily found 2 in most of the coastal areas around the world. Oyster fisheries constitute sizeable industries in many countries (86). Since oysters are filter feeding organisms, they concentrate microorganisms in their body and may serve as vectors for transferring serious food-borne pathogens to humans (35). Millions of oysters (including raw oysters) are consumed annually in the United States. Some of them carry infectious pathogens, such as Vibrio vulnificus (123), which can cause severe illness or even death. Fortunately, many bacterial food- borne pathogens present in oysters can be reduced and/or destroyed by recently developed post-harvest treatment technologies (6, 7, 19, 68). These treatments try to reduce or eliminate consumer risks. On the other hand, extending the shelf-life of oysters is an additional benefit of applying post-harvest treatments to oyster products. Extended shelf-life will result in increasing consumer demand for these products. Oysters industry in the Gulf of Mexico The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, 1791) is known as the American oyster, the Virginia oyster, or the Atlantic oyster. It is one of the most valuable and prominent shellfish in the United States. The eastern oyster occurs naturally and is widely distributed from the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada) to the Gulf of Mexico. The eastern oyster is one of seven exotic oyster species introduced to the Pacific coast of North America by the late 19 th century in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Also, it was transported to Hawaii in early 1866 (86). There is no precise documentation about the importation of market oysters for the Gulf of Mexico, but the 60?s can be considered as the beginning of eastern oyster 3 industry in this area. This corresponds to a period of decline of oyster resources in the Chesapeake Bay due to MSX disease (caused by the sporozoan, Haplosporidium nelsoni) and by increased harvesting. Consequently, the transportation of live oysters between Florida, Louisiana, and Texas became profitable due to the high demand of oysters (86). Most eastern oysters are now harvested from the Gulf of Mexico, which is the major harvesting site for this species in the U.S. In 2006, the amount of eastern oysters landed in the Gulf of Mexico accounted for roughly 89% of all the eastern oysters harvested from all around the U.S. The value of landings in the Gulf has increased yearly from $20,138,817 in 1980 to $62,161,461 by 2006 (106). Typically, oyster harvesting in the U.S. can be done throughout the year; however the quality of the meat varies depending on the season harvested (97). When oysters are harvested, they are transported to wholesalers and/or processors for treatment and packing before being distributed to retailers and consumers. Some may be directly delivered from the harvester to restaurants or retailers without processing. Presentation of oysters to customers depends on how they were processed. Oysters can be sold as whole oysters, shucked, and half-shell processed. In addition, they can be kept fresh and alive, frozen, pasteurized, smoked or canned. Oysters can be consumed raw or cooked based on consumer?s taste and the quality of freshness, flavor, odor, and texture. The in-shell oysters seem to be in higher demand in summer than in other seasons, whereas shucked oyster demand tends to increase during winter season (3). 4 Food safety Although the consumption of seafood is very high, health risks associated with the consumption of raw or uncooked seafood are common around the world (119, 125). In the year 2004, seafood products accounted for 37% of food-borne illnesses in the U.S. (44). Consumption of raw oysters containing food-borne pathogens can cause diseases in humans including primary septicemia (20, 41, 90, 92, 104, 111, 136) and gastroenteritis (23, 37, 38, 83, 100, 107, 110, 126, 134, 146). Handling seafood or being exposed to seawater or seafood contaminated with human pathogens can cause severe wound infections (20, 111, 136). Because oysters concentrate particles from their surrounding waters, human pathogens present in that water are accumulated within the oysters making them a vector for diseases. Typically these pathogens appear to be accumulated in oysters through their filtering system rather than multiply in their body (84). Among the pathogens present in oysters the genus Vibrio is the main concern for the public health authorities (125). Typical food-borne Vibrio pathogens include: V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. fluvialis, V. hollisae, V. mimicus, V. cholerae, V. alginolyticus, V. harveyi, V. pelagius, V. splendidus, and V. campbellii (125, 138). There are some other typical food-borne human pathogens that can be found in oysters such as Salmonella spp., and Escherichia coli (122, 144). However, these are not autochonous marine microbes but the result of fecal contamination. Vibrio vulnificus is a Gram-negative halophilic bacterium, typically found in marine or estuarine environments (114). The major form of V. vulnificus infections in the U.S. is a primary septicemia associated with, mostly, the consumption of raw 5 oysters. Vibrio vulnificus is responsible for most seafood-related death cases in the U.S. each year (123). Gastroenteritis in humans can be caused by many bacterial pathogens. However, V. parahaemolyticus is one of the major causes of gastroenteritis in the U.S. Vibrio parahaemolyticus is a Gram-negative, halophilic bacterium that occurs naturally in estuarine and marine environments. It can be present in pathogenic or non- pathogenic forms and can be isolated from fish and shellfish, including oysters. There are a number of cases of infections caused by V. parahaemolyticus in the U.S. each year from eating raw oysters or shellfish (118). Because of the risks involved in consuming raw oysters, there is a growing concern expressed by the seafood industry as well as the consumers. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) was launched to try to solve this problem. The NSSP is a cooperative program, which was developed in 1925 for controlling diseases associated with the consumption of raw shellfish (55). The program supports and develops the sanitation of shellfish produced for human consumption. The members of NSSP include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), agencies from shellfish producing and non-producing states, shellfish industries, and some foreign governments. In order to control the quality of the shellfish produced in the U.S., NSSP has issued guidelines such as the Model Ordinance and others to ensure that shellfish products are safe for human consumption. The Model Ordinance lays out the minimum requirements necessary to regulate the interstate commerce of shellfish. The Model Ordinance assures the safety of shellfish products from cultivating site, to 6 harvesting, transportation, shucking, packing, post-harvest processing until products are shipped to consumers (56). Microbial content in oysters Microbial contents in seafood depend on the host organism, environment where they live, eating habits, post-harvest handing or processing treatment and the indigenous microbial flora that can grow under storage condition (29, 57). In general, the number of heterotrophic bacteria is greater in bivalve shellfish than in its surrounding water (89). Oysters harvested under warm-water conditions are likely to have higher number of Vibrionaceae than the ones collected from cold water environments (25, 85, 92, 116). In addition, colder temperatures favor bacteria clearance from oysters better than in higher water temperature (67). However, some bacteria are commonly present in shellfish under cold storage conditions for example members of the genera Pseudomonas and Moraxella/Acinetobacter (13). The study of microbiota in shellfish attracts interest due to public health concerns, since pathogenic bacteria can be concentrated in shellfish and cause severe illness in humans through consumption of raw or uncooked oysters. Several studies have been performed in order to investigate microbial composition in shellfish. Natural bacterial biota in oysters has also been investigated (32, 60). Several genera of bacteria have been isolated from oysters such as Aeromonas, Acinetobacter, Alcaligenes, Achomobacter, Alteromonas, Campylobacter, Clostridium, Marinomonas, Flavobacterium/Cytophaga, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Nocardia, Serratia, Salmonella, Escherichia, Enterococci, Enterobacter, Shewanella, 7 Micrococcus, Bacillus, Lactobacillus, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Vibrio, and Corynebacterium (11, 18, 32, 61, 64, 78, 91, 93, 102, 122, 142). At least ten genera of bacterial pathogens have been implicated in seafood-borne illnesses. Bacterial pathogens associated with fecal contamination represent only 4% of the shellfish-associated outbreaks, whereas naturally-occurring bacteria accounted for 20% of shellfish-related illnesses and 99% of the deaths. Most of these indigenous bacteria fall into the family Vibrionaceae which includes the genera Vibrio. In general, Vibrio spp. are not associated with fecal contamination and therefore fecal indicators do not correlate with the presence of Vibrio (95). The genus Vibrio consists of more than 40 species, some of them being pathogenic to humans (26). Among those V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, V. splendidus, V. harveyi, V. phosphoreum, V. cholerae, V. crassostreae, V. aestuarianus, V. natriegens, V. campbellii, V. fluvialis, V. hollisae, V. mimicus, and V. pelagius are usually isolated from oysters (30, 38, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 63, 120, 128, 129, 138). Post-harvest processing The National Shellfish Sanitation Program, FDASAN defines post-harvest processing of shellfish as ?processing of shellfish for the purpose of added safety or quality that involve hazards not addressed by controls in NSSP Model ordinance Chapter XI through XIV?. The same source also defines raw shellfish as ?shellfish that have not been thermally processed to an internal temperature of 145 o or greater for 15 seconds (or equivalent) or; 2) altering the organoleptic characteristic? (54). 8 Most of shellfish, including oysters, are eaten raw or lightly cooked. These conditions are inadequate to eliminate the bacterial pathogens that are concentrated through their filtering mechanism. There are several methods to protect consumers from oyster-borne illnesses including good practices in harvesting, processing, distribution, retailing, food-handling, preparation, and consumption behaviors (1, 145). Post-harvest treatment is an option that can be used to eliminate human pathogens in seafood including oysters. Processors and wholesalers of oysters in the U.S. are required to apply post-harvest treatments to both half-shell and shucked oysters and it is required that all oyster traders must be qualified by NSSP in order to sell their products in intrastate and/or interstate markets. The purpose of using post-harvest treatments is to reduce bacterial human pathogen(s) to safe levels for human consumption. For example, the process that is used to reduce V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus must be capable of reducing them to non-detectable levels (<30 MPN/gram) (53). Additionally, extending the shelf-life of oyster products can be brought about by post- harvest treatments. The available post-harvest treatment technologies for oysters include high-pressure processing, quick-freezing, pasteurization, and irradiation (103). High-pressure processing (HPP) High-pressure processing (HPP), also referred to as high hydrostatic-pressure processing (HHP) or ultra high-pressure processing (UHP) (51), is a novel food processing technology, first applied commercially to oysters in the summer of 1999 in Louisiana (105). Foods processed with HPP are subjected to pressures between 100 and 800 megapascals (MPa) at ambient temperatures. High-pressure processing is 9 considered as an effective and one of the most commonly used technologies for food preservation since it has ability to reduce and/or to destroy the microbial community present in the food, lengthening shelf-life, while providing a safer and better quality food, and increasing market value. Other advantages of this technology is that since it does not use heat, sensory and nutritional attributes of the product remain virtually unaffected, yielding products with better quality than those processed by traditional methods. Furthermore, equipment for large-scale production of HPP processed products is commercially available these days. This technology is being readily adapted and used by the oyster industry and has become the most promising non-thermal process to provide pathogen-free oysters (112, 127). During the high-hydrostatic pressure process, according to Motivatit Seafoods, Inc., oysters are loaded into a water- filled pressure chamber, which is then sealed and pressurized at 40,000 psi (pound per square inch). After treated, oysters may be sold in-shell wrapped with a plastic band to hold the shell firmly shut and are shipped to wholesalers/retailers for distribution to consumers. They can also be shucked into half-shell or frozen using liquid nitrogen in order to lengthen shelf-life. High-pressure processing induces numerous changes to the morphology, biochemical reactions, genetic mechanisms, cell membranes, and microorganisms (132). Inhibitory effects of pressure on microorganisms perhaps are caused by the inactivation of essential enzymes and changes in membrane permeability (73, 128). Pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in meat can be inactivated using high-pressure treatment but effects on the muscle ultrastructure, myofibrillar proteins, meat texture, myoglobin, meat color, and lipid oxidation in muscle have also been documented (28). 10 High-pressure processing does induce changes in color that generally imparted a cooked, more voluminous and juicy appearance to the oyster tissue. The moisture content of oysters increased while ash and protein contents decreased (36). It has been reported that sensory quality of high-pressure treated oysters is not altered from raw oysters after proper level of high-pressure treatment (109). However, after high- pressure treatment, oyster muscles became detached from their shells, resulting in shucking, which adds high value to the product. The higher the pressure, the more effective the shucking but it also has the most deleterious effect on oyster quality as measured by the quality index method (QIM). Optimum shucking pressures that cause minimum changes to oysters appearance are in the range of 240 to 275 MPa (68). High pressure reduces the number of total microorganisms, H 2 S-producing microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria, Brochothrix thermosphacta, and coliforms in oysters by 10 5 CFU/g (96). High-pressure treatment is effective in reducing total bacterial loads and Vibrio spp. in raw oysters (74). It has been shown that pathogenic Vibrio species are susceptible to high-pressure treatment at pressure levels between 200 and 300 MPa (17). Using high-pressure treatment at the pressure of 345 MPa for 30 and 90 seconds numbers of V. parahaemolyticus in oysters can be reduced to non-detectable levels (24). However, different serotypes of V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus require different levels of pressure in order to treat them successfully (34). 11 Quick-freezing/frozen (QF) Freezing is a well established technology for preserving foods. The process can stop the progress of the activities of spoilage microorganisms in and on foods and can preserve some microorganisms for long periods of time. Frozen foods have an excellent overall safety record. There are few occurrences of food-borne illness associated with frozen foods. This indicates that most, although not all, human pathogens are killed by commercial freezing processes. Freezing kills microorganisms by physical and chemical effects and even possibly through the induction of genetic changes. Some studies propose that many pathogenic microorganisms may be sub-lethally injured by freezing (9). However, some studies shown that frozen oysters were responsible for multiple outbreaks of virus infections (143). The cryogenic individual quick-frozen process has been in use for over a decade. In this process, oysters are opened and left on the half-shell, and are then passed through a freezer tunnel that rapidly cooled them down using liquid CO 2 . Shellfish regulators have accepted the scientific data demonstrating the effectiveness of the cryogenic individual quick-frozen process in reducing V. vulnificus to nondetectable levels. However, this process has not been adapted for shucked oysters (105, 113). High numbers of V. parahaemolyticus can be inactivated in freezing conditions. The time of total inactivation depends on the initial number of micro-organisms and incubation temperature (101). Although, Johnston and Brown (2002) showed that Vibrio organisms, whether in the culturable or the non-culturable form, were not inactivated by freezing at -20 o C (80). Frozen storage of edible oyster showed decreasing in moisture, protein, alpha amino nitrogen, and glycogen whereas free fatty 12 acids increased. Viable organisms counts, staphylococci, motile aeromonads, total coliforms, and fecal indicator organisms decreased (14). Pasteurization Pasteurization is a very old food preservation method, invented by Louis Pasteur by the late 19 th century. Pasteurization is the process of treating a food by heating it to a certain point for a certain time to reduce numbers of harmful organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and molds to safe levels for human consumption without harming the flavor or quality of the food. Pasteurization has been used with milk, beer, wine, fruit juices, cheese, and egg products. There are various types of pasteurization available for food processing. High temperature-short time pasteurization uses temperatures from 71.5?C (160?F) to 74?C (165 ?F) for about 15 to 30 seconds. Ultra-high temperature treatment or ultra-heat treatment (UHT) uses a short time, around 1-2 seconds, at temperature exceeding 135 o C (175 o F). UHT reduces the processing time, thereby minimizes the spoiling of nutrients. Low temperature pasteurization at 50 o C for up to 15 minutes can reduce V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus to non-detectable levels, thus reducing the risk of infection associated with raw oyster consumption. Spoilage bacteria can also be reduced by 10 2 to 10 3 colony forming units (CFU)/g using pasteurization treatment, therefore increasing the shelf-life for up to 7 days beyond the life of unprocessed oysters (7). Use of hot water pasteurization followed by cold shock is effective in eliminating V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus from whole oysters to non-detectable levels (6). A pasteurization regime of 2 minutes at 70 o C was found to be effective against V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. cholerae (80). Vibrio 13 vulnificus and total bacterial levels in Gulf Coast oysters were significantly reduced from 10 to 10 4 CFU/g in the pasteurization products. Under the NSSP, pasteurization is an acceptable process for shucking shell-stock (70). According to Ameripure Processing Company, Inc. (Franklin, LA), after oysters are scrubbed, cleaned, and size graded, they are then submerge in a computer-monitored tank of warm water for about 24 minutes, and immediately cool down in an ice water tank to shock bacteria and stop their activities. After treatment, warm-water pasteurization treated oysters are packed on ice with the 15 days use-by-date for in-shell oysters or they may be shucked into the half-shell with the 21 days use-by-date labeled. Irradiation Irradiation is a non-thermal technology, which is capable of preserving foods and eliminating bacterial pathogens in foods and was discovered in the 1920s. This technology was used to preserved different types of food, such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and meat, during World War II (140). Irradiation is considered one of the most efficient technological processes for the reduction of microorganisms in food. Since irradiation can cause damages to a cell by altering its genetic materials, it has been successfully used as a tool to reduce pathogenic bacteria, eliminate parasites, and decrease post-harvest sprouting in many products (137). It can be used to improve the safety of food products, and to extend shelf-life of fresh perishable foods. Irradiated foods are widely accepted in world food markets. Irradiation processing has been studied extensively and is now in use worldwide for many food products (5, 77). In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved irradiation for eliminating 14 insects from wheat, potatoes, flour, spices, tea, fruits, and vegetables. Approval was given in 1985 to use irradiation on pork to control trichinosis. Using irradiation to control Salmonella and other harmful bacteria in chicken, turkey, and other fresh and frozen uncooked poultry was approved in May 1990 (21). The FDA is revising the food additive regulations to provide the safe use of ionizing radiation for controlling of Vibrio species and other food-borne pathogens in fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish such as oysters, mussels, clams, etc. This action is in response to a request filed by the National Fisheries Institute and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (59). Irradiation is capable of serving as a potential sanitizing treatment for improving the sanitary quality and increasing the safety levels of shellfish including oysters for human consumptions (99). Irradiation can inactivate microbial pathogens in raw shellfish including Vibrio species. Irradiation at a dose of 0.75 to 1.5 kGy (KiloGray) can effectively inactivate V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. cholerae in raw oysters to the safe levels (4, 31, 39, 45, 66). Gamma radiation ( 60 Co, Cobalt-60) at a dose of 3.0 kGy can be considered effective in inactivating V. vulnificus in frozen shrimp (121) and Salmonella and V. parahaemolyticus in oysters without changing their odor, flavor, or appearance (77). Although irradiation appears to be an efficient method for eliminating human pathogens in foods it still presents some health concerns to consumers based on the potential residual radiation that might persist in the treated foods. 15 Decontaminations Some decontamination techniques such as relaying and depuration have been tried in order to eliminate oyster-borne pathogens. Depurated shellfish are often assumed to be a bacteriologically safe product. Conversely, it has been reported that vibrios have been associated with outbreaks of gastroenteritis from consumption of depurated oysters. Moreover, Vibrio does not depurate well and may proliferate in depurating shellfish, tank water, and plumbing systems (16). Kelly and Dinuzo (1985) shown that V. vulnificus appears to be slowly depurated from oysters with complete elimination after 16 days (84). However, it has been shown that relaying oysters into waters of higher salinity than those of harvest for 7 days can reduces number of V. vulnificus, although some batches required 1 month or longer to reduce to <10 cells per gram (81). 16 II. OBJECTIVES Consumption of raw or undercooked oysters can lead consumers to infections by bacterial pathogens that are present in oysters. Post-harvest treatments are alternatives for making oysters a safer product. High-pressure treatment is known to reduce human pathogens to safe levels. However, the effect of this post-harvest treatment to the overall oyster flora has not been well established. Moreover, there is evidence that suggests that during the storage process physiological and chemical changes in the oyster meat occurred altering the organoleptic properties of the product. These changes might be due to bacterial flora surviving the treatment. The main goal of this study was to enumerate the bacteria able to survive high- pressure and quick-frozen treatments over time. This main goal was subdivided into the following objectives: 1. To enumerate and compare bacterial numbers in untreated (raw oysters) and treated oysters (high-pressure treated and quick-frozen oysters) during a 21- day storage period under refrigeration conditions. 2. To identify the bacterial species composition present in untreated and treated oysters during the storage period. 17 Experimental design This study design included the use of two types of post-harvest treated oysters as well as untreated oysters. All three samples were commercial products on their way to the market (from the processor to the retailer). The samples examined were: 1. High-pressure treated oysters 2. Quick-frozen oysters 3. Raw oysters Samples were collected from three different seasons (winter, summer and fall) in the year 2006. High-pressure treated and raw oysters were stored at 4 o C and quick- frozen oysters were maintained at -20 o C during 21 days of study following the recommended storage conditions of company (Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc.). Parameters examined were: 1. Total aerobic counts were determined using a general growing medium. 2. Presumptive Vibrio and presumptive V. vulnificus were enumerated using selective media 3. Identification of randomly selected colonies by genetic methods. Table 1. shows details of the experimental design. TABLE 1. Experimental design for oyster sampling and bacterial enumeration. Season Winter Summer Fall Days of storage a 0 7 14 21 0 7 14 21 0 7 14 21 Number of oysters sampled b 10 HP 10 QF 18 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW 10 HP 10 QF 10 RW Media c M T C M T CMTCMTCMTCMTCMT C M TCMTCMTCMTCMTC Number of plates replicated 3 3 3 3 3 333333333333333 3 3 33333333333333 a, Storage temperature was 4?C for high-pressure treated and raw oysters and -20?C for quick-frozen oysters. b, HP, high-pressure treated oysters; QF, quick-frozen oysters; RW, raw oysters. c, M, Marine agar; T, Thiosulfate-Citrate-Bile-Sucrose agar; C, Cellobiose-Polymyxin B-Colistin agar. 19 III. ENUMERATION OF BACTERIA IN HIGH-PRESSURE TREATED, QUICK-FROZEN, AND RAW OYSTERS 20 ABSTRACT The total number of aerobic bacteria present in oysters after post-harvest treatments over a 3-week storage period was investigated in this study. Two post- harvest treatments, high-pressure and quick-frozen oysters were compared along with untreated (raw) oysters. In order to test if bacterial numbers were influenced by season, three sampling events were carried out independently through a year. Results show that the numbers of total bacterial counts in treated oysters were significantly lower than in untreated oysters at day 0 by 10 to 10 5 CFU/g in all samplings. However, an increase in the total bacterial counts in high-pressure treated oysters was observed at day 7, 14, and 21 during the storage period. Quick-frozen oysters maintained their levels between 10 4 and 10 6 CFU/g during the 21-day storage period regardless of the sampling season. Total bacterial numbers in high-pressure treated oysters varied between seasons; numbers of bacteria investigated at day 0 in fall were significantly higher (P<0.05) than in winter and in summer. Total bacterial counts in quick-frozen oysters during this study differed in all seasons (P<0.05). Total bacterial numbers at day 0 in raw oysters in summer were significantly higher than in winter and fall by 10 4 CFU/g (P<0.05). These results indicate that season have an influence on the number of total bacteria present in both treated and untreated oysters. 21 INTRODUCTION Oysters are the most numerous harvested shellfish in the world and oyster commerce is important industries for many countries. Oysters are filter feeders that tend to concentrate pathogenic microbes that can cause severe illness in humans. Since most oysters are eaten raw or poorly cooked, they can act as vectors for pathogenic microbes. Currently, there is high consumer demand for oysters that are safe, additive-free, retain original flavor, nutrients, texture, appearance, and have longer shelf-life. Post-harvest treatments are used to reduce pathogenic bacteria in oysters to non-detectable levels, thereby extending shelf-life, maintaining freshness and quality of oysters. Currently, there are several FDA approved post-harvest treatment technologies for oysters. High- pressure processing is a non-thermal processing technique recognized as a very effective process to destroy food-borne microorganisms, increase the safety and lengthen oysters shelf-life without causing significant changes in appearance, texture, flavor, and nutritional constituents (112). High-pressure processing inactivates/destroys microorganisms by inducing changes to the morphology, biochemical reactions, and genetic system (73, 132). Changing in enzymatic reaction restrains the accessibility of energy to microorganisms thereby reducing the viability of the cell (12). Several studies showed that HPP has a good potential in reducing enzymatic activities and microbiological loads including human pathogens and spoilage bacteria in foods (17, 69, 73, 112). Bacterial loads in shucked oysters are effectively reduced by high-pressure treatment (131). Berlin et al. (1999) showed that Vibrio spp. are susceptible to inactivation by high-pressure treatment and that pathogenic Vibrio spp. can be 22 inactivated at pressure levels between 200 and 300 MPa (17). Counts of coliforms, presumptive E. coli, H 2 S producing microorganisms and total viable counts in oysters can be reduced to below detection levels by high-pressure at 400 MPa for 10 minutes at 7 o C (96). High-pressure processing can reduce the initial total microbial load in oysters by 10 2 to 10 3 CFU/g and keep levels low during subsequent storage period of over 27 days at 4 o C (68). However, Furukawa et al. (2002) showed that the initial concentration of bacteria has an effect on the inactivation rates of cells by high-pressure treatment (62). Frozen foods have an outstanding record for food safety and illnesses associated with frozen foods are rare. Most frozen foods are quick-freezing to minimize crystallize effects. The storage temperature of frozen foods after they have been through the freezing process is also important. The storage temperature can determine the final quality of the product when purchased and used by the consumer (98). Freezing is generally an excellent way to preserve microorganisms. However, the effects of freezing on most microbial pathogens are not well documented. Bacterial spores are extremely resistant to the effect of freezing. Some outbreaks indicated that certain human pathogens are not killed by freezing (98). Vibrio spp. appear be quite susceptible to freezing, their susceptibilities are affected by bacterial density, their physiological state before freezing and natural cryoprotectants associated with foods in which vibrios are naturally found. Oysters subjected to freezing temperatures have shown reductions in viable V. vulnificus numbers by 2 to 5 orders of magnitude depending on initial concentration and the storage temperature (33, 113). Initial loads of V. parahemolyticus in oyster meat subjected to freezing reported to affect survival numbers (101). 23 The microflora present in oysters depends on the environment, feeding habits and mode of harvesting and handling. However, conditions during storage determine which microbes are responsible for spoilage. Predominant bacterial species that can survive the treatment process and tolerate low temperature storage in shellfish are pseudomonads and members of the genera Moraxella/Acinetobacter (13). Serratia spp., Proteus spp., Clostridium spp., and Bacillus spp. are also associate to seafood spoilage (79). Factors that affect inactivation of bacteria in foods include bacterial strain, growth phase, growth temperature, and composition of food matrices (98). Linton et al. (2003) showed that Gram-negative bacteria are more susceptible to the high-pressure treatment than Gram- positive bacteria, leading to an increase in the amount of Gram-positive species during storage (93). The effect of high-pressure treatment on the overall microbial composition in oysters has not been well established. Additionally, there is some evidence showing that some bacterial flora can survive after oysters have been treated with high-pressure and were stored over a period of time (68). These bacteria may cause organoleptic changes including texture, odor, flavor, and taste of oysters treated with high-pressure reported by some consumers. On the other hand, these alterations can be due to chemical reactions or enzymatic activities intrinsic to the process. The objective of this study was to determine if bacteria could survive the treatment and if so, if they were be able to multiply during the storage period. 24 MATERIALS AND METHODS Oyster samples and storage High-pressure treated and quick-frozen oysters as well as raw oysters were provided by Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., Bon Secour, AL. These oysters were commercial oysters on their way to the market. Exact time/date for the post-harvest treatment as well as from which location they were collected was unavailable to us. Oysters were shipped overnight under refrigeration conditions to Auburn University. Post-harvest treatments were carried out according to company?s procedure: Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., Bon Secour, AL (quick-frozen oysters); Motivatit Seafoods, Inc., Houma, LA (high-pressure treated oysters). Oysters were sampled at three different seasons: winter (Feb 23 to Mar 16, 2006); summer (Jul 13 to Aug 3, 2006); and fall (Nov 6 to Dec 7, 2006). High-pressure treated and raw oysters were maintained at 4?C and quick- frozen oysters were kept at -20?C during the study. Sample preparation and bacterial isolation Upon arrival at the laboratory, ten oysters from each treatment were randomly collected and aseptically shucked. Oyster meat from ten oysters was pooled together and weighed. Sterile saline water (0.85% NaCl, w/v) was added 1:1 ratio and the mixture was homogenized in a sterile blender. Ten fold serial dilutions of the homogenate were performed (up to 10 -9 ) and 100 ?l from each dilution were spread in triplicate, onto three different culture media: MA (Marine Agar-Difco, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD) for total bacterial count (22); TCBS 25 (Thiosulphate-Citrate-Bile Salts-sucrose-Difco, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD) selective medium for presumptive Vibrio count (50); and mCPC (modified Cellobiose-Polymixin B-Colistin, see appendix) for presumptive V. vulnificus count (49). Inoculated plates were incubated at 30?C and read daily for 7 days. The dilutions yielding 30-300 CFU/plate were counted and CFU/g was calculated. The experiments were repeated at 7, 14, and 21 days of storage. The colony forming units (CFU) calculation was performed using the following formula: CFU/g original sample = CFU/plate x (1/ml aliquot plated) x dilution factor. Data analysis Bacterial numbers were analyzed in triplicate. The standard error was calculated for all replicated treatment. F-test, Completely Randomized Design, was performed in order to determine if there is difference among data set using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure in the Statistical Analysis System, SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.). RESULTS Tables 2, 3, and 4 showed total bacterial counts (TBC), presumptive Vibrio spp. count (PV), and presumptive V. vulnificus count (PVv) from winter, summer, and fall, respectively. Results showed that the TBC at day 0 in high-pressure treated oysters were significantly lower than in the raw oysters by 10 to 10 5 CFU/g (P<0.05). The TBC in high-pressure treated oysters at day 0 were significantly lower than in quick-frozen oysters in summer and in fall (P<0.05) but there was no significantly different in winter 26 (P>0.05). An increase in the TBC in high-pressure treated oysters was observed at day 7, 14, and 21 during the storage period in all three sampling seasons. The TBC reached > 10 7 CFU/g at day 7 in summer and in fall and >10 8 CFU/g at day 14 and day 21 in all sampling seasons (Figures 1-4). Numbers of presumptive Vibrio spp. and presumptive V. vulnificus in high-pressure treated oysters at day 0 were below detectable level (<20 CFU/g) in all sampling seasons. The TBC in quick-frozen oysters were significantly lower than in raw oysters (P<0.05) throughout the storage period (Figures 1-3). Levels were maintained between 10 4 and 10 6 CFU/g during the study regardless of sampling season (Figure 5). Numbers of presumptive Vibrio in quick-frozen oysters in winter and in summer fluctuated between 0 and 10 3 CFU/g whereas no vibrios were detected in fall. Numbers of presumptive V. vulnificus in quick-frozen oysters were <10 2 CFU/g in all three seasons. The TBC in raw oysters were higher than in post-harvest treated oysters in all seasons at time 0. The TBC in summer were 10 9 CFU/g at day 0 and gradually decreased to similar levels as in winter and in fall at day 7, 14, and 21 of the storage period. However, the TBC in summer were higher than in every other seasons (P<0.05) at all sampling times (Figure 6). Numbers of presumptive Vibrio in raw oysters varied between 10 2 and 10 6 CFU/g, lowest in fall and maintained their concentrations of about 10 2 CFU/g throughout storage period. Numbers of presumptive V. vulnificus were between 0 and 10 4 CFU/g, with the highest number found in summer (between 10 3 and 10 4 CFU/g). 27 DISCUSSION Analyses of bacterial communities in high-pressure treated oysters are relatively scarce. Among the few available studies, Linton et al, (2003) analyzed the microbial population of pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas treated with high-pressure over 28 days of refrigeration at 2 o C. This study showed that total aerobic counts, psychrotrophic counts, pseudomonads and coliform were significantly reduced after pressure treatment (93). He et al. (2002) reported that high-pressure processing can reduce microbial loads in pacific oysters by 10 2 to 10 3 CFU/g (68). Shiu (1999) showed that high-pressure is effective in reducing the total bacterial loads in shucked oysters (131). To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the microflora from high-pressure treated eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica has been investigated. The results of this study agree with those studies mentioned above in that the numbers of bacterial flora in high-pressure treated oysters were reduced to lower levels in comparison to raw oysters. However, an increase in total number of bacterial flora after high-pressure treated oysters were maintained at 4 o C for 7, 14, and 21 days was observed, showing that some bacterial species can not only survive the high-pressure treatment but are able to multiply in oysters under refrigeration. The ability of bacteria to survive the high- pressure treatment varies dramatically and ultimately depends on their intrinsic susceptibility to the pressure. In addition, several factors that affect the effectiveness of high-pressure treatment in reducing bacterial numbers in oysters are: the pressure used during treatment; the initial concentration of bacteria; the environment surrounding bacteria, and the bacterial composition in the oysters (98). Gram-positive bacteria are 28 typically more resistant to the high-pressure treatment than Gram-negative due to the differences of their membrane and cell walls (130, 135). Linton et al. (2003) reported that no significant increase in total bacterial counts in high-pressure treated oysters during a 28 days storage period although the proportion of Gram-positive bacteria increased from 56% to 87% due to the inactivation of the Gram-negative species (93). However, Smiddy et al. (2005) reported that Gram-negative E. coli 0157:H45 was slightly more resistant to high-pressure than Gram-positive Listeria monocytogenes (133). Calik et al. (2002) compared the efficacy of high-pressure to inactivate V. parahaemolyticus in buffer and in oysters. These authors found less resistance when V. parahaemolyticus was embedded in oyster tissue (24). Moreover, sub-lethal injury of bacteria can also cause an over-estimation of microbial inactivation, as counts taken immediately after high-pressure treatment can be lower than those observed after a period of storage, especially for microorganisms in food or nutrient-rich media (27). Differences of bacterial numbers in high-pressure treated oysters collected from three different seasons indicated that bacterial numbers in oysters are influenced by season and may affect the efficiency of the treatment. This results agrees with the study by Kingsley et al. (2002) in where seasonal and geographical variations in oyster physiology and composition were showed to have an effect on the efficacy of high- pressure treatment (87). As was expected, under freezing conditions bacteria were unable to multiply, therefore, numbers of the TBC varied little throughout the 21-day storage at -20 o C. Something to consider when isolating bacteria from frozen foods is their stressed status that might impede them to grown on culture media. It has been reported that the mode 29 of isolation and medium used can have significant impact on the recovery of microorganisms after freezing and thawing (98). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that high-pressure treatment was effective in reducing microbial loads in raw oysters, which should lengthen shelf-life of products. However, quite large numbers of bacteria survived the treatment and were able to proliferate during refrigeration. These bacteria reached high numbers, even higher than the TBC in raw oysters, and are likely to cause spoilage and alter the organoleptic properties of treated oysters. In addition, number of microflora in oysters can differ from season to season and this may affects the total surviving bacteria after high- pressure treatment. 30 TABLE 2. Winter sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period. TBC a PV b PVv c Samples days (CFU/g) d (CFU/g) (CFU/g) High-pressure treated oysters 0 1.6x10 4 10 10 7 8.4x10 4 6.1x10 4 1.3x10 3 14 2.9x10 8 7.3x10 3 5.3x10 3 21 1.5x10 9 2.8x10 4 1x10 3 Quick-frozen oysters 0 2x10 4 3.9x10 2 10 7 1.7x10 4 2.7x10 3 30 14 1.3x10 5 0 40 21 9.7x10 3 0 0 Raw oysters 0 3.5x10 5 9x10 2 5x10 2 7 1.8x10 7 8.5x10 3 4.6x10 3 14 4.9x10 6 1.4x10 3 5x10 2 21 6.7x10 7 2.9x10 3 0 a, TBC, total bacterial count b, PV, presumptive Vibrio count c, PVv, presumptive V. vulnificus count d, CFU/g, colony forming unit per gram 31 TABLE 3. Summer sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period. TBC a PV b PVv c Samples days (CFU/g) d (CFU/g) (CFU/g) High-pressure treated oysters 0 1.4x10 4 20 10 7 4.8x10 7 1.2x10 2 2x10 4 14 3.4x10 8 4.6x10 2 1.1x10 5 21 1.2x10 8 1.5x10 2 0 Quick-frozen oysters 0 9.4x10 4 1.5x10 2 0 7 4.4x10 4 0 0 14 1.7x10 4 2.4x10 2 1x10 2 21 2.2x10 4 0 0 Raw oysters 0 1.4x10 9 1.1x10 5 6.7x10 3 7 3.6x10 7 4.3x10 3 2.4x10 3 14 1.3x10 8 1x10 3 8x10 3 21 2.9x10 8 2.5x10 5 4x10 3 a, TBC, total bacterial count b, PV, presumptive Vibrio count c, PVv, presumptive V. vulnificus count d, CFU/g, colony forming unit per gram 32 TABLE 4. Fall sampling: total bacterial counts, presumptive Vibrio spp. counts, and presumptive V. vulnificus counts isolated from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters during a 21-day storage period. TBC a PV b PVv c Samples days (CFU/g) d (CFU/g) (CFU/g) High-pressure treated oysters 0 3.3x10 4 10 0 7 1.5x10 8 6.1x10 2 0 14 2x10 8 1.6x10 3 1.3x10 4 21 1.4x10 9 1.1x10 3 1.3x10 4 Quick-frozen oysters 0 1.9x10 5 0 0 7 1.3x10 5 0 10 14 9.2x10 4 0 30 21 3.5x10 5 0 0 Raw oysters 0 2.8x10 5 2x10 2 60 7 1.1x10 7 3.8x10 3 20 14 1.2x10 6 3.4x10 2 7.7x10 3 21 1.1x10 7 2.6x10 2 2x10 3 a, TBC, total bacterial count b, PV, presumptive Vibrio count c, PVv, presumptive V. vulnificus count d, CFU/g, colony forming unit per gram 33 days 0 7 14 21 log ( C FU/g) 0 2 4 6 8 10 HP QF RW Figure 1. Winter sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. days 0 7 14 21 l og (CFU/ g ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 HP QF RW Figure 2. Summer sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. 34 days 0 7 14 21 l o g (C FU / g ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 HP QF RW Figure 3. Fall sampling: total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated (HP), quick-frozen (QF), and raw (RW) oysters. days 0 7 14 21 log ( C FU/g) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Winter Summer Fall Figure 4. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006. 35 days 0 7 14 21 l og (CFU/ g ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Winter Summer Fall Figure 5. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from quick-frozen oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006. days 0 7 14 21 log (CF U /g) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Winter Summer Fall Figure 6. Total bacterial counts (CFU/g) from raw oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006. 36 IV. BACTERIAL COMPOSITION AND SPECIES IDENTIFICATION IN COMERCIAL OYSTERS 37 ABSTRACT More than 500 strains of heterotrophic bacteria isolated from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters sampled in winter, summer, and fall 2006 were identified to the genus and/or the species level by sequencing the highly conserved 16S rRNA gene. Seven classes of bacteria were found among those isolates. The majority of bacterial strains belonged to the Gram-negative bacterial class Gammaproteobacteria (between 56% and 92% depending on the sample). The remaining of them belonged to the Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Flavobacteria and Sphingobacteria classes. A low percentage of Gram-positive bacteria were identified as members of the Actinobacteria and Bacilli classes (1% to 5% depending on the sample). Four isolates could not be assigned to any known class and were considered unclassified. The most prevalent genera were: Shewanella, Vibrio and Psychrobacter. Only four species of human pathogenic bacteria were identified: V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and Aeromonas hydrophila. Vibrio vulnificus was isolated only from untreated (raw) oysters. No E. coli or other fecal coliforms were identified from any sample. 38 INTRODUCTION The safety of oysters as food is related to their potential of being contaminated by bacterial species that can multiply to infective levels during marketing and retailing operations including handling and storage. Microbial communities in shellfish have been examined mainly from a public health point of view, since they tend to concentrate pathogenic microorganisms that can cause diseases in humans. The recovery of human pathogenic bacteria from shellfish has been widely reported, with most of the studies focusing on fecal contamination, enteric pathogens and pathogenic species of Vibrio (46, 60). Although more than ten genera of bacterial pathogens have been associated to seafood-borne diseases, they can be categorized into three general groups: i) indigenous bacteria, ii) non-indigenous bacteria present in the ecosystem, and iii) non-indigenous bacteria added during processing. Indigenous pathogens typically associated with the aquatic environment include V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, V. vulnificus, Plesiomonas spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum and Aeromonas spp. (only virulent strains). Among these bacteria Aeromonas spp. and Plesiomonas spp. present a minimal public health hazard, particularly in comparison with the intrinsic risks associated with environmental Vibrio spp. Non-indigenous pathogens often found in the aquatic ecosystem are mostly associated with fecal contamination that can also occur during harvest and post-harvest handling. Typical examples are Salmonella spp., E. coli (pathogenic strains), Shigella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Yersinia enterocolitica (pathogenic serotypes). Finally, non-indigenous pathogens can be introduced to the final product during post-harvest handling such as Bacillus cereus 39 (toxigenic strains), L. monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and C. perfringens (58, 124). Pathogenic bacteria frequently isolated from oysters include Salmonella, Shigella, V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, C. perfringens, C. botulinum, and Y. enterocolitica, Campylobacter, E. coli, Aeromonas, and L. monocytogenes (8, 15, 64, 76). Spoilage of shellfish occurs primarily because of the metabolic activities of microorganisms or autolysis (13). The spoilage microflora present in shellfish is determined by their environment as well as by handling and storage conditions after landing or harvest (13, 79). Most microbial flora present in oysters collected from temperate water are psychrotrophic bacteria. Psychrotrophic microflora are microorganism that can cause spoilage of foods during cold storage due to their ability to proliferate under low temperature condition. Studies on microbial loads in oysters during storage showed that each microbial group showed a distinct response to the various storage conditions. For example, Salmonellae can survive in oyster meats for up to 14 days at cold temperatures while levels of V. cholerae increased when oysters were stored at cold temperatures (72). Bacterial composition in oysters is dominated by Gram-negative bacteria such as Halomonadaceae, Pseudomonadacea, Flavobactium/Cytophaga, Photobacterium, Vibrio, Alteromonas, Pseudoaltermonas, and Shewanella (71, 120). Seafood, including shellfish, are generally spoiled by Gram-negative bacteria, which tend to be more pressure sensitive than Gram-positive bacteria (65). High-pressure treatment could contribute to eliminating not just the human pathogens but potential spoilage bacteria as well. Pressures in the range of 300?600 MPa can inactivate many bacterial vegetative cells (132). In general, Gram-positive vegetative bacteria are more resistant to 40 environmental stressors, including pressure, than vegetative cells of Gram-negative bacteria. Among the pathogenic non-sporeforming Gram-positive bacteria, L. monocytogenes and S. aureus are the two most well-studied regarding the use of high- pressure processing. Staphylococcus aureus appears to have a high resistance to pressure (51). Pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria appear to have a wide range of sensitivity to pressure treatment. E. coli O157:H7 shows pressure resistance comparable to spores (94). In addition, some strains of Salmonella spp. have shown relatively high levels of pressure resistance (115). Because of their pressure resistance and their importance in food safety, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. are the main concern in the development of effective high-pressure food treatments (51, 94). It has been shown that high-pressure treated seafood has higher amounts of Gram-positive bacteria, markedly lactic acid bacteria, attributable to the greater susceptibility of Gram-negative species to high-pressure (51, 93). Although lactic acid bacteria may not be completely eliminated by high-pressure, their numbers in seafood can be reduced and their growth interrupted (96). Nevertheless, off-odors associated with spoilage due to lactic acid bacteria are generally less objectionable than those produced by typical spoilage bacteria which contributes to the extended shelf-life of high-pressure treated seafood (139). It has also been proposed that the inhibition of other spoilage bacteria by lactic acid bacteria may improve the preservation of foods (75). The objective of this study was to identify the composition of bacterial species present in treated and untreated oyster samples during periods of storage and to determine bacterial species responsible for the spoilage of oysters under refrigeration. 41 MATERIALS AND METHODS Bacterial samples collection Single bacterial colonies isolated on solid media from previous study (see Chapter III) were randomly picked and re-isolated in MA (Marine Agar-Difco, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD). More than 500 isolates were selected including bacterial colonies from all types of samples (high-pressure treated, quick-frozen and raw oysters), recovered in all three media used (MA, TCBS, and mCPC) from all three sampling seasons (winter, summer and fall). After culture purity was ensured, cells were maintained in semi-solid marine agar (0.3% agar) in the dark at room temperature until identified. Bacterial pure cultures were recovered from semi-solid agar and were inoculated onto MA plates and incubated at 30?C for 18-24 hours to allow bacteria grow to mid-log phase. Gram test (using 3% KOH) and oxidase test [using BD oxidase reagent droppers (Becton, Dickinson and company, Sparks, MD)] were performed not later than 24 hours of post-inoculation. Rice grain size (3 mm. long) bacterial isolates were aseptically collected and placed into a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tubes and were kept in -20 o C for DNA extraction. DNA extraction DNA extraction was carried out using the method described by Pitcher et al. (1989) (117). The Gram-positive cells were pre-incubated in 100 ?l of lysozyme at 37 o C for 30 minutes and then resuspended in 100 ?l of TE buffer (Tris 10 mM, EDTA 1 42 mM, pH 8). The Gram-negative cells were directly resuspended in 100 ?l of TE buffer. Five hundred microliters of the GES reagent (Guanidine thiocyanate-EDTA-Sarkosyl, see appendix) was added and vortexed gently for a few minutes. Two hundred and fifty microliters of 7.5 M ice-cold ammonium acetate was slowly added, mixed gently, and left on ice for 10 minutes to precipitate proteins. Five hundred microliters of ice-cold chloroform/2-pentanol (24:1) was added to the solution and the suspension was vigorously mixed to form an emulsion. The mixture was centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 10 minutes. Seven hundred microliters of supernatant was transferred to a new 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube and then 400 ?l of cold iso-propanol was added and mixed gently until DNA was precipitated. The solution was discarded and the DNA pellet was washed three times with 70% cold ethanol, air dried for 30 minutes, and re-suspended in 150 ?l of sterile milli-Q water. DNA was quantified using a GeneQuant spectrophotometer (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Sweden), and was diluted to 50 ng/ml, and stored at -20 o C for amplification. PCR condition and DNA amplification The 16S rDNA was amplified using bacterial universal primers 63V (5?-CAG GCC TAA CAC ATG CAA GTC-3?) and 1387R [5?-GGG CGG (A/T)GT GTA CAA GGC-3?] (10) in a total volume of 50 ?l. All PCR reagents except for primers (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) were purchased from Promega (Promega, Madison, WI). One hundred and fifty nanograms of DNA was used as a template in a PCR reaction consisting of 1X PCR buffer, 2.5 mM MgCl 2 , 0.2 mM of dNTP mix, 0.1 mM of each primer, and 0.15 U of Taq polymerase. DNA amplification was carried out in DNA 43 Engine (PTC0200) Peltier Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) using the following PCR cycle: hot start at 94 o C for 5 minutes, followed by 35 cycles of denaturizing at 94 o C for 30 seconds, annealing at 55 o C for 30 seconds, and extension at 72 o C for 1:30 minutes; a finale step at 72 o C for 4 was added before samples were cooled down to 4 o C. In order to confirm PCR successful amplification, five microliters of each 16S rDNA amplified product was examined on a 1% (w/v) agarose gel in 1X TAE (0.04 M Tris, 0.02 M acetate, 0.001M EDTA) buffer containing 0.5?g/ml of ethidium bromide. The gel was run for 60 minutes at 100 V in 1X TAE buffer using electrophoresis system TetraSource TM 300 (Edvotek Inc., W. Bethesda, MD). A 1-kb ladder (Promega, Madison, WI) was used as a standard marker. The PCR products were then visualized under a UV Tranilluminator wave length 302 nm (DyNA Light UVP, Upland, CA). DNA sequencing and sequence analyses The 16S rDNA amplified products were sequenced at the Genetic Analysis Laboratory, Auburn University. The DNA sequences were read and edited by Chromas version 1.45 (Conor McCarthy, School of Health Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia) and were compared to the bacterial sequences in GenBank database using Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) service (2) through the National Center for Biotechnology information (NCBI) website (108). Query sequences that had between 97% to 100 % identity match to those in GenBank were considered identified at the species level. 44 RESULTS The 16S rDNA from 533 bacterial isolates was amplified and sequenced. Sequences were compared to the ones present in GenBank and identified on the basis that > 97% sequence similarity is a good match at the species level. Most of the obtained sequences could be ascribed to species. Sequences with less the 97% similarity were identified at the genus level. Only four isolates lack enough similarity with known sequences and were considered unidentified. Bacterial composition in high-pressure treated oysters One hundred and seventy nine bacterial isolates from high-pressure treated oysters were sequenced (Table 5). Isolates belonged to five different bacterial classes. The majority of them belonged to the class Gammaproteobacteria, which accounted for 82-92% of the total sequences with a 91-99% sequence similarity. The remaining of them were Alphaproteobacteria, Flavobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacilli (Figures 7-9). One bacterial isolate from the fall sample could not be ascribed to any class. Most common genera in high-pressure treated oysters were Shewanella (15.7-23.9%) and Vibrio (21.4-22.6%). Psychrobacter was predominant only in fall; accounting for 18.6% of total fall isolates (Table 5). Some pathogenic bacteria were found in high-pressure treated oysters, including V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and A. hydrophila. However, no V. vulnificus was identified from any samples tested (Table 8). 45 Bacterial composition in quick-frozen oysters A total of 118 bacterial isolates from quick-frozen oysters were sequenced (Table 6). The results showed that bacterial composition in quick-frozen oysters fall into six classes. Most of isolates belonged to the class Gammaproteobacteria, which accounted for 56-66% of total sequences. The remaining were Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Flavobacteria, Bacilli, Actinobacteria, and Sphingobacteria (Figures 10-12). Shewanella was the dominant genus in winter sampling. Three genera were co- dominant in summer: Shewanella 24%, Vibrio 22.2%, and Psychrobacter 18.5%. In fall, Psychrobacter was the dominant genus, representing 30.5% followed by the genus Vibrio 16.6% (Table 6). Pathogenic bacteria identified from quick-frozen oysters included the species V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and A. hydrophila. No V. vulnificus was detected from any seasons during the storage period (Table 8). Bacterial composition in raw oysters A total of 236 bacterial isolates from raw oysters were sequenced (Table 7). Bacterial sequences belonged to six different bacterial classes. The most common group represented was Gammaproteobacteria, which accounted for 80-89% of the total sequences. The rest of sequences belonged to Alphaproteobacteria, Flavobacteria, Bacilli, Actinobacteria, and Sphingobacteria. Two unclassified isolates were obtained, one each in summer and fall samplings (Figure 13-15). The most predominant genera in all sampling seasons were Vibrio and Shewanella, which comprised 41.7 and 22.9% in winter, 55.7 and 11.4 % in summer and 27.8 and 21.3% in fall, respectively. In addition, Pseudomonas was also predominant in fall (13.9%) (Table 7). There were several 46 pathogenic bacteria isolated from raw oysters. They belonged to the species V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and A. hydrophila (Table 8). Most of them were recovered from summer and fall samplings. DISCUSSION Hazardous bacteria present in seafood can be divided in to two main groups: indigenous bacteria naturally present in the aquatic environments and fecal bacteria of human or animal origin that are introduced into the aquatic environment (124). Contamination of seafood with pathogenic bacteria may also occur through the introduction of microbial during post-harvest handling or processing (124). Typically, indigenous spoilage bacteria will outgrow the pathogenic bacteria during storage, therefore the product will spoil before pathogens increase greatly (57). Bacterial composition was different between oyster samples and among them based on sampling season. In general, bacterial communities investigated in this study were dominated by Gram-negative bacteria with Shewanella spp., Vibrio spp. and Psychrobacter spp. as the main genera. These bacteria have been previously reported as responsible agents for causing spoilage in seafood during cold storage. In particular, Shewanella putrefaciens is frequently isolated from spoiled fish (82). My results contradict the report of Linton et al. (2003) that indicated that most of bacteria surviving high-pressure treatment are Gram-positive (93). Gammaproteobacteria was dominant in all samples; although it was presented in quick-frozen oysters less than in high-pressure treated and raw oysters in all sampling seasons. Moreover, quick-frozen oysters seemed 47 to harbor higher bacterial diversity than any other type of sample tested. In both high- pressure treated and raw oysters higher bacterial diversity (more bacterial classes identified) were found in fall and summer while winter sampling displayed the least bacterial diversity. In contrast, bacterial communities in quick-frozen oysters seemed to be more diverse in winter than in fall or summer. This can be related to the fact that winter bacterial communities might be better adapted to cold shock. Four species of food-borne pathogenic bacteria, among those described by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), FDA (52), were found in this study: V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, and A. hydrophila. Only the last three species were recovered from high-pressure treated and quick-frozen oysters. However, pathogenic bacteria were detected in low numbers and were detected after oysters were maintained for 7 to 21 days. This finding suggests that after high-pressure treatment, some of these pathogenic bacteria were killed whereas some were just inactivated or injured and were not able to grow immediately after treated but could be recovered several days post-treatment. Vibrio parahaemolyticus is known to be a very heat and cold sensitive bacterium (141). However, under the same pressurized condition, V. parahaemolyticus appears to be more resistant than V. vulnificus and needs a pressure of at least 345 Mpa at 7.7 minutes in order to reduce its number by 10 4 CFU/g (88). It has also been shown that some strains of V. parahaemolyticus and some strains of V. mimicus are sensitive to and can be completely inactivate by high-pressure treatment at 200-300 MPa for 5-15 minutes at 25 o C (17). My results showed that at least a few V. parahaemolyticus can resist both high-pressure and freezing treatments. 48 In conclusion, the data present in this study indicate that a broad variety of bacteria (mostly Gram-negative) survive the high-pressure treatment as well as freezing. No qualitative difference between high-pressure treated and raw oysters composition could be inferred from my data. Several human pathogens were recovered and identified from treated and untreated (raw) oysters although only raw oysters yielded V. vulnificus isolates. 49 TABLE 5. Identification of isolates recovered from high-pressure treated oysters. days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity Winter 0 ?-Proteobacteria Brevundimonas sp. 1 DQ676936 99 Brevundimonas sp. 1 EF423374 99 ?-Proteobacteria Citrobacter gillenii 1 AF025367 99 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 97, 98 7 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas veronii 1 DQ029351 98 Aeromonas veronii 1 EF669480 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF579965 99 Oceanisphaera 1 DQ190440 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF639351 98 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 98 Shewanella colwelliana 1 AY653177 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 99 Vibrio ordalii 1 AY628646 99 14 Bacilli Exiguobacterium 1 EF530574 98 Carnobacterium 1 AY543034 98 ?-Proteobacteria Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 98 Psychrobacter nivimaris 1 EF101544 99 Rahnella aquatilis 1 DQ862542 99 Serratia odorifera 3 AJ233432 98 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 99 Shewanella hafniensis 1 AB205566 99 Shewanella putrefaciens 1 AY321590 98 21 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas salmonicida 1 CP000644 91 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF091704 99 Morganella 1 DQ358137 98 Morganella 1 DQ358139 99 Obesumbacterium proteus 1 DQ223874 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY303291 98 Psychrobacter aquimaris 1 EF101547 99 Rahnella aquatilis 2 DQ862542 97, 99 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 98 Shewanella putrefaciens 1 AB208055 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 4 AJ845015 98, 99 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 4 AY245192 98, 99 Continued on following page 50 TABLE 5. ?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity Summer 0 Flavobacteria Flavobacterium sp. 2 AJ244702 97, 99 Tenacibaculum lutimaris 2 AY661693 97, 98 Bacilli Bacillus sp. 1 EF061440 99 Staphylococcus sp. 1 EF061904 98 ?-Proteobacteria Thalassospira sp. 1 AB265822 97 ?-Proteobacteria Enterobacter pulveris 1 EF614996 99 Enterobacteriaceae 1 EF151985 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AM491466 95 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 99 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ967028 99 Vibrio alginolyticus 1 EF542800 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ513192 98 7 ?-Proteobacteria Rahnella sp. 2 AM167519 98 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 99 Vibrio crassostreae 1 EF094887 98 Vibrio pomeroyi 1 AB257329 98 Vibrio rumoiensis 2 DQ530289 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068945 98 14 Actinobacteria Kocuria sp. 1 DQ531639 99 Enterococcus thailandicus 1 EF197994 98 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas hydrophila 1 AY827493 99 Aeromonas salmonicida 1 CP000644 98 Pantoea sp. 1 DQ094146 95 Serratia grimesii 6 DQ086780 97- 99 Shewanella baltica 3 AB205580 98, 99 Shewanella baltica 3 CP000753 98, 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845014 98 Vibrio ordalii 2 AY628646 97 Vibrio rumoiensis 1 DQ530289 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068947 98 Continued on following page 51 TABLE 5.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 21 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 AB301018 97 Carnobacterium maltaromaticum 1 AY543034 99 ?-Proteobacteria Enterobacter amnigenus 1 AM062693 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF091704 98 Pantoea sp. 2 DQ094146 98, 99 Pseudomonas fluorescens 1 DQ207731 99 Pseudomonas putida 1 AM411059 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AM491466 99 Psychrobacter cibarius 2 AY639872 98, 99 Serratia grimesii 1 AY789460 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 98 Shewanella sp. 1 CP000503 98 Vibrio rumoiensis 1 DQ530289 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068945 98 Fall 0 Flavobacteria Gelidibacter salicanalis 1 AY694009 98 Tenacibaculum lutimaris 2 AY661693 98 Vitellibacter vladivostokensis 2 AB071382 98 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 EF672052 98 ?-Proteobacteria Paracoccus sp. 1 AM231059 97 Pseudovibrio denitrificans 2 AY486423 97 ?-Proteobacteria Acinetobacter sp. 1 EU000454 99 Pantoea dispersa 1 DQ504305 98 Pantoea sp. 1 EF522820 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY770691 99 Psychrobacter pulmonis 2 EF101551 98, 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 99 Vibrio alginolyticus 1 EF542800 98 Vibrio sp. 1 AY542526 99 7 Bacilli Bacillus firmus 1 AB271750 98 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas salmonicida 2 CP000644 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 DQ247934 98 Psychrobacter cibarius 1 AY639872 99 Shewanella hafniensis 1 AB205566 98 Shewanella putrefaciens 2 AY321590 98, 99 Vibrio crassostreae 1 EF094887 98 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 AF388387 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068945 98 Continued on following page 52 TABLE 5.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 14 Bacteria Endophyte bacterium 1 AY842148 99 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 EF672042 99 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas salmonicida 1 CP000644 99 Aeromonas sp. 1 EF550579 98 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF579965 99 Proteus hauseri 2 DQ885262 98, 99 Proteus vulgaris 1 DQ826507 99 Psychrobacter cibarius 2 AY639872 98, 99 Psychrobacter sp. 4 AM396916 97-99 Serratia grimesii 1 DQ086780 98 Shewanella baltica 1 AB205580 98 Shewanella baltica 4 CP000753 98, 99 Shewanella hafniensis 3 AB205566 98, 99 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 AY245179 98 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068945 97 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068947 98 21 ?-Proteobacteria Acinetobacter junii 1 EF669479 98 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF091702 99 Marinomonas sp. 1 CP000749 99 Morganella morganii 2 DQ358145 98, 99 Proteus vulgaris 1 DQ885257 99 Psychrobacter sp. 1 AJ582399 99 Psychrobacter sp. 2 AM396916 99 Shewanella baltica 3 CP000753 98 Vibrio pomeroyi 1 AB257324 98 Vibrio rumoiensis 2 DQ530289 99 53 TABLE 6. Identification of isolates recovered from quick-frozen oysters. days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity Winter 0 Flavobacteria Formosa agariphila 1 AJ893518 98 Gelidibacter salicanalis 1 AY694009 97 Gelidibacter sp. 1 AF513399 98 Salegentibacter sp. 1 DQ073102 99 Sphingobacteria Sphingobacterium 1 AB100739 93 ?-Proteobacteria Martelella mediterranea 1 AY649762 97 Ochrobactrum anthropi 1 AM490611 98 ?-Proteobacteria Bordetella sp. 1 AM402948 99 ?-Proteobacteria Microbulbifer salipaludis 1 AF479688 98 Pseudoalteromonas 1 DQ537520 99 Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 98 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ271657 98 Shewanella sp. 1 AY566557 98 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ146980 99 7 ?-Proteobacteria Shewanella baltica 1 AB205580 99 Shewanella baltica 3 CP000753 97-99 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ967028 98 1 14 Bacilli Bacillus megaterium 1 EF690405 98 ?-Proteobacteria Microbulbifer celer 1 EF486352 97 Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 99 21 ?-Proteobacteria Paracoccus marcusii 2 AY881236 99 Sphingomonas 1 AJ871434 98 ?-Proteobacteria Serratia marcescens 1 EF627046 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 99 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ967026 99 Summer 0 Flavobacteria marine bacterium 1 AB032514 99 Mesoflavibacter 1 AB265181 96 Bacilli Bacillus hwajinpoensis 1 AF541966 98 Bacillus megaterium 1 AY167862 99 Bacillus pumilus 1 AB271753 99 ?-Proteobacteria Phaeobacter daeponensis 3 DQ981486 98, 99 ?-Proteobacteria Shewanella baltica 1 CP000563 98 Shewanella colwelliana 1 AB205570 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 2 EF542800 98, 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ513193 99 Continued on following page 54 TABLE 6.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 7 Actinobacteria Microbacterium 1 AJ277840 99 Flavobacteria Bizionia paragorgiae 1 AY651070 98 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 AB271753 99 Halobacillus salinus 1 AF500003 99 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudomonas fragi 1 AM062695 99 Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 99 Psychrobacter pacificensis 1 AB016054 99 Psychrobacter pacificensis 1 EF179615 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 99 Shewanella baltica 3 CP000563 97-99 14 Actinobacteria Rothia arfidiae 1 DQ673322 98 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 EF029070 99 Bacillus pumilus 2 AB271753 99 ?-Proteobacteria Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 99 Shewanella algae 2 X81621 98 Shewanella amazonensis 1 CP000507 97 Shewanella loihica 2 CP000606 98, 99 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 BA000031 98 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 DQ068942 98 Vibrio rumoiensis 1 DQ530289 99 Vibrio sp. 2 AY542526 98, 99 Vibrio sp. 2 DQ857750 99 21 Bacilli Bacillus pumilus 1 AB271753 99 ?-Proteobacteria Sphingomonas 1 AJ871434 98 ?-Proteobacteria Psychrobacter celer 1 EF101550 99 Psychrobacter celer 2 AY842259 98 Psychrobacter glacincola 2 EF640972 99 Psychrobacter pacificensis 1 AB016054 99 Shewanella baltica 1 AB205580 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 98 Vibrio rumoiensis 2 DQ530289 98, 99 Fall 0 Flavobacteria Gelidibacter salicanalis 1 AY694009 98 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas 2 AB257569 99 Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 98 Continued on following page 55 TABLE 6.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 7 Flavobacteria Bizionia paragorgiae 2 AY651070 97, 98 Formosa algae 1 AY771766 98 Bacilli Bacillus barbaricus 1 DQ870771 99 Bacillus pumilus 1 EF029070 97 Staphylococcus sciuri 1 AB233332 97 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF551372 98 Psychrobacter glacincola 4 EF640972 97-99 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ271657 97 Vibrio alginolyticus 1 EF542800 97 Vibrio rumoiensis 2 DQ530289 98, 99 14 Flavobacteria Arenibacter latericius 1 AF052742 98 Carnobacterium 1 AY543034 99 ?-Proteobacteria Paracoccus marcusii 1 AY881236 99 ?-Proteobacteria Psychrobacter glacincola 2 EF640972 98 Psychrobacter marincola 1 AJ309941 97 Stenotrophomonas sp. 1 AJ534843 96 Vibrio rumoiensis 2 DQ530289 98, 99 21 Flavobacteria Bizionia algoritergicola 1 AY694003 97 Gelidibacter salicanalis 1 AY694009 98 Bacilli Bacillus niabensis 1 DQ176423 98 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas 1 AB257569 98 Psychrobacter glacincola 2 EF640972 97, 98 Psychrobacter marincola 1 AJ309941 99 Vibrio rumoiensis 1 DQ530289 98 56 TABLE 7. Identification of isolates recovered from raw oysters. days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity Winter 0 Flavobacteria Olleya marilimosa 1 EF660466 98 Polaribacter sp. 1 DQ356493 98 ?-Proteobacteria Oceanisphaera 1 DQ190440 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 2 EF628006 98 Shewanella sp. 2 AJ271657 98 Vibrio sp. 1 AB274765 98 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068948 97 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ649435 100 Vibrio sp. 1 EF584056 96 Vibrio sp. 1 EF584062 88 Vibrio splendidus 1 AM422807 99 7 ?-Proteobacteria Psychrobacter cibarius 1 AY639872 99 Shewanella baltica 4 CP000753 98 Vibrio nigripulchritudo 1 AB297941 98 Vibrio sp. 2 DQ146990 98 Vibrio sp. 1 EF187006 99 Vibrio sp. 1 EF474168 98 Vibrio sp. 1 EF584056 97 Vibrio sp. 1 EF584059 83 14 Flavobacteria Cellulophaga sp. 1 AY035869 98 Olleya marilimosa 2 EF660466 99 Psychroserpens sp. 1 DQ073103 98 Salegentibacter sp. 1 DQ073102 98 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 AF539781 95 Psychrobacter nivimaris 1 EF101544 98 Shewanella colwelliana 1 AF530131 98 Shewanella colwelliana 3 AY653177 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845021 83 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ146990 98 Vibrio sp. 1 EF584059 94 Continued on following page 57 TABLE 7.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 21 Flavobacteria Formosa agariphila 1 AJ893518 97 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas sp. 2 EF628002 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF639379 96 Shewanella colwelliana 1 AB205570 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 98 Vibrio sp. 2 DQ068948 97 Vibrio vulnificus 1 AE016795 98 Summer 0 Actinobacteria Curtobacterium sp. 1 EF612296 98 Micrococcus sp. 1 EF419329 99 ?-Proteobacteria Erwinia soli 1 EF540893 97 Pseudomonas sp. 1 DQ885459 99 Shewanella algae 2 X81621 98 Shewanella loihica 1 CP000606 98 Shewanella sp. 1 AF249336 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845014 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 2 EF542800 98 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 3 AF388387 98 Vibrio sp. 1 AY542526 97 Vibrio vulnificus 2 AE016795 97 Vibrio vulnificus 1 X76333 97 7 Actinobacteria Curtobacterium sp. 1 EF612296 99 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 AB261170 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF628006 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF639350 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF639351 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 DQ645482 99 Psychrobacter 1 EF640972 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845014 90 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 1 EF542798 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 4 EF542800 97, 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 1 X74691 99 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 BA000031 99 Vibrio vulnificus 4 AE016795 98 Vibrio vulnificus 3 X76333 98 Continued on following page 58 TABLE 7.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 14 Bacteria uncultured bacterium 1 EF379672 96 ?-Proteobacteria Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF382708 97 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 1 EF628006 98 Pseudoalteromonas sp. 2 EF639351 99 Psychrobacter sp. 1 AY689064 99 Shewanella algae 1 X81621 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 98 Vibrio alginolyticus 5 EF542800 98, 99 Vibrio vulnificus 1 AE016795 99 Vibrio vulnificus 3 X76333 98 21 Actinobacteria Micrococcus sp. 1 EF540464 99 Flavobacteria Flavobacteriaceae bacterium 1 DQ660394 99 Myroides odoratus 3 M58777 97 ?-Proteobacteria Enterobacteriaceae 1 DQ436917 98 Listonella anguillarum 1 EF091702 97 Pseudomonas fluorescens 1 EF552157 99 Pseudomonas sp. 1 DQ645482 99 Shewanella baltica 2 CP000753 98 Shewanella putrefaciens 1 AY321590 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 2 AJ845014 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 97 Vibrio aestuarianus 2 AJ845016 95, 98 Vibrio vulnificus 1 AE016795 98 Vibrio vulnificus 1 X76333 98 Fall 0 Bacteria uncultured bacterium 1 AB175370 99 Sphingobacteria Sphingobacterium composta 1 AB244764 97 ?-Proteobacteria Roseobacter sp. 1 DQ120728 97 Ruegeria atlantica 1 AB255399 98 Silicibacter pomeroyi 1 CP000031 99 Stappia kahanamokuae 1 EF101503 99 uncultured sludge bacterium 1 AF234725 98 Continued on following page 59 TABLE 7.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity ?-Proteobacteria Acinetobacter lwoffii 1 DQ144736 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 AM235737 98 Pseudomonas oryzihabitans 1 AY850170 100 Pseudomonas 1 DQ837704 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AM403178 98 Shewanella algae 1 AF005250 97 Shewanella putrefaciens 1 CP000681 96 Stenotrophomonas 1 EF620454 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845016 97 Vibrio shilonii 2 AY911392 98 Vibrio vulnificus 7 AE016795 97-99 7 Sphingobacteria Sphingobacterium sp. 1 EF423371 99 ?-Proteobacteria Phaeobacter daeponensis 1 DQ981486 99 ?-Proteobacteria Acinetobacter johnsonii 1 DQ257425 99 Aeromonas hydrophila 1 EF645798 99 Aeromonas salmonicida 1 CP000644 98 Aeromonas veronii 1 EF669480 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 DQ247934 99 Marinomonas sp. 1 EF673290 92 Pseudoalteromonas 1 DQ537514 99 Pseudoalteromonas 1 AF475096 99 Pseudomonas putida 1 AY277620 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY770691 99 Pseudomonas sp. 1 EF190347 99 Rheinheimera baltica 1 AJ441082 99 Serratia sp. 1 EF528312 99 Shewanella baltica 1 CP000753 99 Shewanella loihica 2 CP000606 98, 99 Shewanella sp. 1 AJ967028 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845011 98 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 98 Vibrio harveyi 1 EF635306 98 Vibrio parahaemolyticus 1 AF388387 98 Vibrio rotiferianus 1 AM422800 87 Vibrio shilonii 2 AY911392 98, 99 Vibrio sp. 1 DQ068946 97 Vibrio vulnificus 2 AE016795 97, 99 Continued on following page 60 TABLE 7.?Continued days Class Closest species No.of seq. GenBank Accession No. % identity 14 Flavobacteria Flavobacteriaceae bacterium 2 DQ660394 96, 99 Flavobacterium 1 AB275999 96 Gelidibacter salicanalis 1 AY694009 98 Sphingobacteria Sphingobacterium composta 1 AB244764 97 Sphingobacterium faecium 1 AM411066 99 ?-Proteobacteria Phaeobacter daeponensis 1 DQ981486 99 Pseudorhodobacter 3 DQ001322 99, 100 ?-Proteobacteria Ferrimonas balearica 1 AB193753 98 Pseudoalteromonas 1 AB257569 100 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY690706 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY770691 99 Psychromonas sp. 1 AB238791 90 Shewanella arctica 1 AJ877256 99 Shewanella baltica 6 CP000753 97, 98 Shewanella hafniensis 1 AB205566 99 Shewanella oneidensis 1 AY881235 99 Shewanella sp. 1 EF639386 99 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845013 94 Vibrio aestuarianus 1 AJ845015 97 Vibrio aestuarianus 2 AJ845021 95, 97 Vibrio mimicus 1 X74713 99 Vibrio sp. 1 AB186497 94 Vibrio vulnificus 1 AE016795 99 21 Flavobacteria Empedobacter sp. 1 AM232808 99 Bacilli Bacillus sp. 1 EF690430 75 ?-Proteobacteria Aeromonas veronii 1 AY928478 99 Listonella anguillarum 1 DQ247934 97 Pseudoalteromonas 1 AF475096 99 Pseudomonas anguilliseptica 1 AY771754 99 Pseudomonas fragi 1 AM062695 99 Pseudomonas sp. 1 AY770691 98 Pseudomonas sp. 1 EF523605 81 Pseudomonas stutzeri 1 AJ270454 98 Pseudomonas synxantha 1 AY486386 99 Psychrobacter glacincola 1 EF640972 99 Shewanella arctica 1 AJ877256 99 Shewanella baltica 6 CP000753 97-99 Vibrio aestuarianus 3 AJ845015 98 61 TABLE 8. Pathogenic bacteria recovered from high-pressure treated, quick-frozen, and raw oysters versus total number of sequenced isolates. sample/ Number of isolate day Vv a Vp b Va c Ah d W e S f F g W S F W S F W S F HP h 0 0/5 0/15 0/18 0/5 0/15 0/18 0/5 1/15 1/18 0/5 0/15 0/18 7 0/9 0/9 0/11 0/9 0/9 1/11 0/9 0/9 0/11 0/9 0/9 0/11 14 0/12 0/22 0/27 0/12 0/22 1/27 0/12 0/22 0/27 0/12 1/22 0/27 21 0/20 0/16 0/15 4/20 0/16 0/15 0/20 0/16 0/15 0/20 0/16 0/15 QF i 0 0/14 0/13 0/4 0/14 0/13 0/4 0/14 2/13 0/4 0/14 0/13 0/4 7 0/5 0/12 0/15 0/5 0/12 0/15 0/5 0/12 1/15 0/5 0/12 0/15 14 0/3 0/17 0/9 0/3 2/17 0/9 0/3 0/17 0/9 0/3 1/17 0/9 21 0/6 0/12 0/8 0/6 0/12 0/8 0/6 0/12 0/8 0/6 0/12 0/8 RW j 0 0/13 3/19 7/25 0/13 3/19 0/25 0/13 2/19 0/25 0/13 0/19 0/25 7 0/12 7/23 2/29 0/12 1/23 1/29 0/12 6/23 0/29 0/12 0/23 1/29 14 0/14 4/18 1/33 0/14 0/18 0/33 0/14 5/18 0/33 0/14 0/18 0/33 21 1/9 2/19 0/22 0/9 0/19 0/22 0/9 0/19 0/22 0/9 0/19 0/22 a, Vv, V. vulnificus b, Vp, V. parahaemolyticus c, Va, V. alginolyticus d, Ah, A. hydrophila e, W, winter f, S, summer g, F, fall h, HP, high-pressure treated oysters I, QF, quick-frozen oysters J, RW, raw oysters 62 Figure 7. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in winter 2006. Figure 8. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in summer 2006. Figure 9. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from high-pressure treated oysters sampled in fall 2006. 63 Figure 10. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in winter 2006. Figure 11. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in summer 2006. Figure 12. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from quick-frozen oysters sampled in fall 2006. 64 Figure 13. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in winter 2006. Figure 14. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in summer 2006. Figure 15. Pie diagram illustrating the class-level diversity of 16S rRNA gene bacterial sequences isolated from raw oysters sampled in fall 2006. 65 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 1) Both treated oysters (high-pressure and quick-frozen oysters) presented lower bacterial counts at time 0 than raw oysters. 2) Bacterial loads in high-pressure treated oysters increased over time and were equal or higher than in raw oysters between 14 and 21 days post-treatment. 3) Bacterial loads in quick-frozen oysters remained fairly constant throughout the study. 4) Sampling season has an effect on bacterial loads in raw oysters. However, post-harvest treatments were able to reduce bacterial numbers to similar levels regardless of season. 5) Bacterial communities in all samples investigated were dominated by Gram- negative bacteria mostly by members of the Gammaproteobacteria class, regardless of sample type or sampling season. 6) Most human pathogens were recovered from raw oysters. V. vulnificus was detected only from raw oysters. 7) A few pathogens were identified in both types of treated oysters investigated in this study. V. parahaemolyticus was isolated from both high-pressure treated and quick-frozen oysters several days after treatment. 66 8) Even though the majority of surviving bacteria found in high-pressure treated oysters were not human pathogens they were in high enough numbers to potentially cause spoilage and organoleptic changes in oyster meat. Based on these finding, I suggest that: 1) Shelf-life of high-pressure treated oysters (3 weeks) should be reviewed. 2) The refrigeration conditions of oysters after high-pressure treatment should be re-evaluated. 3) Combining high-pressure treatment with other techniques such as decontamination may increase efficacy of high-pressure in reducing/inactivating bacterial flora. Also, the addition of additives may help to inhibit bacterial growth during storage increasing the shelf-life of treated oysters. 4) In this study basic culture media were used to estimate Vibrio spp. and V. vulnificus numbers. In order to confirm the number of human pathogens presents in the oysters, including V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus FDA recommended methods should be used in the future. Propose/Future works My work opens new venues for the post-harvest treated oysters. Proposed topics for future research are: 1) Extensive evaluation of V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus resistance to post-harvest treatment. 67 2) Repeat study using FDA recommended methods to identify human pathogens (V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus). 3) Compare pre- and post-treated oysters from same batch and include pasteurization and radiation as treatments. 4) Quantitative identification of predominant bacteria in high-pressure treated oysters during storage. 5) Study of the use of additives and investigate their effects in slowing or stopping bacterial growth in high-pressure treated oysters during cold storage may be needed, in order to expand their shelf-life. 6) Re-evaluate the organoleptic tests in high-pressure treated oysters after 1 week post-treatment. 68 CUMULATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Altekruse, S. F., S. Yang, B. B. Timbo, and F. J. Angulo. 1999. A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 16:216-21. 2. Altschul, S. F., W. Gish, W. Miller, E. W. Myers, and D. J. Lipman. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215:403-410. 3. Anderson, D. W., R. C. Lindrooth, B. C. Murray, and J. L. Teague. 1996. Cost of restrictions on Gulf oyster harvesting for control of Vibrio vulnificus- caused disease. Project report. Research Triangle Institute, NC. 4. Andrews, L., M. Jahncke, and K. Mallikarjunan. 2003. Low dose gamma irradiation to reduce pathogenic Vibrio in live oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 12:71-82. 5. Andrews, L. S., M. Ahmedna, R. M. Grodner, J. A. Liuzzo, P. S. Murano, E. A. Murano, R. M. Rao, S. Shane, and P. W. Wilson. 1998. Food preservation using ionizing radiation. Reviews of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 154:1-53. 6. Andrews, L. S., S. DeBlanc, C. D. Veal, and D. L. Park. 2003. Response of Vibrio parahaemolyticus 03:K6 to a hot water/cold shock pasteurization process. Food Additives & Contaminants 20:331-4. 69 7. Andrews, L. S., D. L. Park, and Y. P. Chen. 2000. Low temperature pasteurization to reduce the risk of vibrio infections from raw shell-stock oysters. Food Additives & Contaminants 17:787-91. 8. Andrews, W. H., C. D. Diggs, M. W. Presnell, J. J. Miescier, C. R. Wilson, C. P. Goodwin, W. N. Adams, S. A. Furfari, and J. F. Musselman. 1975. Comparative validity of members of the total coliform and faecal coliform groups for indicating the presence of Salnonella in the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. J. Milk Food Technol 38:453-456. 9. Archer, D. L. 2004. Freezing: an underutilized food safety technology? International Journal of Food Microbiology 90:127-38. 10. Arias, C. R., J. W. Abernathy, and Z. Liu. 2006. Combined use of 16S ribosomal DNA and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis to study the bacterial community in catfish ponds. Letters in Applied Microbiology 43:287- 92. 11. Arumugaswamy, R. K., R. W. Proudford, and M. J. Eyles. 1988. The response of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in the Sydney rock oyster (Crassostrea commercialis), during depuration and storage. International Journal of Food Microbiology 7:173-83. 12. Ashie, I. N. A., B. K. Simpson, and H. S. Ramaswamy. 1996. Control of endogenous enzyme activity in fish muscle by inhibitors and hydrostatic pressure using RSM. Journal of Food Science 61:350-356. 70 13. Ashie, I. N. A., J. P. Smith, and B. K. Simpson. 1996. Spoilage and shelf-life extension of fresh fish and shellfish. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 36:87-121. 14. Balasundari, S., T. J. Abraham, S. A. Shanmugam, and G. I. Jasmine. 1997. Frozen storage performance of edible oyster Crassostrea madrasensis (Preston). Journal of Food Science and Technology-Mysore 34:434-436. 15. Barrow, G. I., and D. C. Miller. 1974. Microbiological and other hazards from seafoods with special reference to Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 50:612-619. 16. Barrow, G. I., D. C. Miller, G. I. Barrow, and D. C. Miller. 1969. Marine bacteria in oysters purified for human consumption. Lancet 2:421-3. 17. Berlin, D. L., D. S. Herson, D. T. Hicks, and D. G. Hoover. 1999. Response of pathogenic Vibrio species to high hydrostatic pressure. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 65:2776-2780. 18. Birkenhauer, J. M., and J. D. Oliver. 2002. Effects of refrigeration and alcohol on the load of Aeromonas hydrophila in oysters. Journal of Food Protection 65:560-2. 19. Birkenhauer, J. M., and J. D. Oliver. 2003. Use of diacetyl to reduce the load of Vibrio vulnificus in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Journal of Food Protection 66:38-43. 20. Borenstein, M., and F. Kerdel. 2003. Infections with Vibrio vulnificus. Dermatologic Clinics 21:245-8. 21. Brennand, P. C. 1995. Food Irradiation. Idaho State University. FN-250.8. 71 22. Buck, J. D., and R. C. Cleverdon. 1960. The Spread Plate as a Method for the Enumeration of Marine Bacteria. Limnology and Oceanography 5:78-80. 23. Cabanillas-Beltran, H., E. Llausas-Magana, R. Romero, A. Espinoza, A. Garcia-Gasca, M. Nishibuchi, M. Ishibashi, and B. Gomez-Gil. 2006. Outbreak of gastroenteritis caused by the pandemic Vibrio parahaemolyticus O3:K6 in Mexico. FEMS Microbiology Letters 265:76-80. 24. Calik, H., M. T. Morrissey, P. W. Reno, and H. An. 2002. Effect of high- pressure processing on Vibrio parahaemolyticus strains in pure culture and Pacific oysters. Journal of Food Science 67:1506-1510. 25. Centers for Disease Control and, P. 1996. Vibrio vulnificus infections associated with eating raw oysters--Los Angeles, 1996. MMWR - Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 45:621-4. 26. Chakraborty, S., G. B. Nair, and S. Shinoda. 1997. Pathogenic vibrios in the natural aquatic environment. Reviews on environmental health 12:63-80. 27. Cheftel, J. C. 1995. Review: High-pressure, microbial inactivation and food preservation. Food Science & Technology International 1:75-90. 28. Cheftel, J. C., and J. Culioli. 1997. Effects of high pressure on meat: A review. Meat Science 46:211-236. 29. Chen, H. C. 1995. Seafood microorganisms and seafood safety. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 3:133-144. 30. Coleman, S. S., D. M. Melanson, E. G. Biosca, and J. D. Oliver. 1996. Detection of Vibrio vulnificus biotypes 1 and 2 in eels and oysters by PCR amplification. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 62:1378-82. 72 31. Collins, M. V., G. J. Flick, S. A. Smith, R. Fayer, E. Rubendall, and D. S. Lindsay. 2005. The effects of E-beam irradiation and microwave energy on Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) experimentally infected with Cryptosporidium parvum. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 52:484-8. 32. Colwell, R. R., and J. Liston. 1960. Microbiology of shellfish. Bacteriological study of the natural flora of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Applied Microbiology 8:104-9. 33. Cook, D. W. 1997. Refrigeration of oyster shellstock: Conditions which minimize the outgrowth of Vibrio vulnificus. Journal of Food Protection 60:349- 352. 34. Cook, D. W. 2003. Sensitivity of Vibrio species in phosphate-buffered saline and in oysters to high-pressure processing. Journal of Food Protection 66:2276-2282. 35. Cook, D. W., P. Oleary, J. C. Hunsucker, E. M. Sloan, J. C. Bowers, R. J. Blodgett, and A. Depaola. 2002. Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in U.S. retail shell oysters: a national survey from June 1998 to July 1999. Journal of Food Protection 65:79-87. 36. Cruz-Romero, M., A. L. Kelly, and J. P. Kerry. 2007. Effects of high-pressure and heat treatments on physical and biochemical characteristics of oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 8:30- 38. 37. Daniels, N. A., L. MacKinnon, R. Bishop, S. Altekruse, B. Ray, R. M. Hammond, S. Thompson, S. Wilson, N. H. Bean, P. M. Griffin, and L. 73 Slutsker. 2000. Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections in the United States, 1973- 1998. Journal of Infectious Diseases 181:1661-6. 38. Daniels, N. A., B. Ray, A. Easton, N. Marano, E. Kahn, A. L. McShan, L. Del Rosario, T. Baldwin, M. A. Kingsley, N. D. Puhr, J. G. Wells, and F. J. Angulo. 2000. Emergence of a new Vibrio parahaemolyticus serotype in raw oysters: A prevention quandary. JAMA 284:1541-5. 39. de Moraes, I. R., N. L. Del Mastro, M. Jakabi, and D. S. Gelli. 2000. Radiosensitivity of Vibrio cholerae O1 incorporated in oysters, to (60)CO. Revista de Saude Publica 34:29-32. 40. Depaola, A., and G. C. Hwang. 1995. Effect of dilution, incubation time, and temperature of enrichment on cultural and PCR detection of Vibrio cholerae obtained from the Oyster Crassostrea virginica. Molecular and Cellular Probes 9:75-81. 41. DePaola, A., C. A. Kaysner, J. Bowers, and D. W. Cook. 2000. Environmental investigations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in oysters after outbreaks in Washington, Texas, and New York (1997 and 1998). Applied & Environmental Microbiology 66:4649-54. 42. DePaola, A., J. L. Nordstrom, J. C. Bowers, J. G. Wells, and D. W. Cook. 2003. Seasonal abundance of total and pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Alabama oysters. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 69:1521-6. 43. DePaola, A., J. L. Nordstrom, A. Dalsgaard, A. Forslund, J. Oliver, T. Bates, K. L. Bourdage, and P. A. Gulig. 2003. Analysis of Vibrio vulnificus from 74 market oysters and septicemia cases for virulence markers. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 69:4006-11. 44. Diaz, J. H. 2004. Is shellfish consumption safe? Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society 156:187-92. 45. Douifi, L., J. Raffi, P. Stocker, and F. Dole. 1998. A point about electron paramagnetic resonance detection of irradiated foodstuffs. Spectrochimica Acta Part A, Molecular & Biomolecular Spectroscopy 54A:2403-12. 46. Dupont, J., D. Menard, C. Herve, F. Chevalier, B. Beliaeff, and B. Minier. 1996. Rapid estimation of Escherichia coli in live marine bivalve shellfish using automated conductance measurement. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 80:81-90. 47. Ellison, R. K., E. Malnati, A. Depaola, J. Bowers, and G. E. Rodrick. 2001. Populations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in retail oysters from Florida using two methods. Journal of Food Protection 64:682-6. 48. Faury, N., D. Saulnier, F. L. Thompson, M. Gay, J. Swings, and F. Le Roux. 2004. Vibrio crassostreae sp. nov., isolated from the haemolymph of oysters (Crassostrea gigas). International Journal of Systematic & Evolutionary Microbiology 54:2137-40. 49. FDACFSAN. 2001. Bacteriological Analytical Manual: M98-Modified cellobiose-polymixin B-colistin (mCPC) agar. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/m98.html. 50. FDACFSAN. 2001. Bacteriological Analytical Manual: M147-Thiosulfate- Citrate-Bile Salts-Sucrose (TCBS) Agar. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/m147.html. 75 51. FDACFSAN. 2001. Evaluation and definition of potentially hazardous foods; Effect of preservation technologies on microbial inactivation in foods. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/ift4-5.html. 52. FDACFSAN. 2006. Foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins handbook: Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap9.html. 53. FDACFSAN. 2007. National shellfish sanitation program: Guide for the control of mlluscan shellfish, II. Model ordinance, XVI. Post harvest processing. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3or16.html. 54. FDACFSAN. 2007. National shellfish sanitation program: Guide for the control of mlluscan shellfish, II. Model ordinance. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3orpd.html 55. FDACFSAN. 2007. National shellfish sanitation program: Guide for the control of molluscan shellfish 2005, history of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3-9.html. 56. FDACFSAN. 2007. National shellfish sanitation program: Guide for the control of molluscan shellfish 2005. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3-toc.html. 57. Feldhusen, F. 2000. The role of seafood in bacterial foodborne diseases. Microbes & Infection 2:1651-60. 58. Feldhusen, F. 1999. Seafood related diseases. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 106:319-325. 76 59. Food and Drug Administration, H. H. S. 2005. Irradiation in the production, processing, and handling of food. Final rule. Federal Register 70:48057-73. 60. Fraiser, M. B., and J. A. Koburger. 1983. Incidence of Salmonella in clams, oysters, and mullet. J Food Prot 47:343-345. 61. Friedman, C. S., B. L. Beaman, J. Chun, M. Goodfellow, A. Gee, and R. P. Hedrick. 1998. Nocardia crassostreae sp. nov., the causal agent of nocardiosis in Pacific oysters. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 48 Pt 1:237- 46. 62. Furukawa, S., S. Noma, M. Shimoda, and I. Hayakawa. 2002. Effect of initial concentration of bacterial suspensions on their inactivation by high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 37:573-577. 63. Garnier, M., Y. Labreuche, C. Garcia, M. Robert, and J. L. Nicolas. 2007. Evidence for the involvement of pathogenic bacteria in summer mortalities of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. Microbial Ecology 53:187-96. 64. Gillespie, I. A., G. K. Adak, S. J. O'Brien, M. M. Brett, and F. J. Bolton. 2001. General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease associated with fish and shellfish, England and Wales, 1992-1999. Communicable Disease & Public Health 4:117-23. 65. Gram, L., and H. H. Huss. 2000. Flesh and processed fish and shellfish. In: B. M. Lund, T. C. Baird-Parker, & G. W. Gould (Eds.), The microbiological safety and quality of food. 1:472- 506. 66. Hackney, C. R., and A. Dicharry. 1988. Seafood-borne bacterial pathogens for marine origin. Food Technol 42:104-109. 77 67. Hartland, B. J., and J. F. Timoney. 1979. Vivo clearance of enteric bacteria from the hemolymph of the hard clam and the American oyster. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 37:517-20. 68. He, H., R. M. Adams, D. F. Farkas, and M. T. Morrissey. 2002. Use of high- pressure processing for oyster shucking and shelf-life extension. Journal of Food Science 67:640-645. 69. He, H. A., R. M. Adams, D. F. Farkas, and M. T. Morrissey. 2001. The use of high hydrostatic pressure to shuck oysters and extend shelf-life. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:1299-1300. 70. Hesselman, D. M., M. L. Motes, and J. P. Lewis. 1999. Effects of a commercial heat-shock process on Vibrio vulnificus in the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, harvested from the Gulf Coast. Journal of Food Protection 62:1266-9. 71. Hood, M. A., G. E. Ness, and G. E. Rodrick. 1981. Isolation of Vibrio cholerae serotype O1 from the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 41:559-60. 72. Hood, M. A., G. E. Ness, G. E. Rodrick, and N. J. Blake. 1983. Effects of storage on microbial loads of two commercially important shellfish species, Crassostrea virginica and Mercenaria campechiensis. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 45:1221-8. 73. Hoover, D. G., C. Metrick, A. M. Papineau, D. F. Farkas, and D. Knorr. 1989. Biological effects of high hydrostatic pressure on food microorganisms. Food Technol 43:99-107. 78 74. Hu, X., P. Mallikarjunan, J. Koo, L. S. Andrews, and M. L. Jahncke. 2005. Comparison of kinetic models to describe high pressure and gamma irradiation used to inactivate Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus prepared in buffer solution and in whole oysters. Journal of Food Protection 68:292-5. 75. Hurtado, J. L., P. Montero, and R. Borderias. 2001. Chilled storage of pressurized octopus (Octopus vulgaris) muscle. Journal of Food Science 66:400- 406. 76. Huss, H. H., A. Reilly, and P. K. Ben Embarek. 2000. Prevention and control of hazards in seafood. Food Control 11:149-156. 77. Jakabi, M., D. S. Gelli, J. C. M. D. Torre, M. A. B. Rodas, B. D. G. M. Franco, M. T. Destro, and M. Landgrafi. 2003. Inactivation by ionizing radiation of Salmonella enteritidis, Salmonella infantis, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in oysters (Crassostrea brasiliana). Journal of Food Protection 66:1025-9. 78. Jay, J. J. 1996. Modern food microbiology,5th ed. N.Y.: Chapman & Hall. P 127. in: He, H., R. M. Adams, D. F. Farkas, and M. T. Morrissey. 2002. Use of High-pressure processing for oyster shucking and shelf-life externsion. Journal of Food Science. 67:640-645. 79. Jay, J. M. 2000. Seafoods In: Modern food microbilolgy, 6th ed. P. 101-111. Maryland , USA: Aspen Publishers Inc. In: Linton, M., J. M. J., Mc Clements andM. F., Patterson. 2003. Changes in the microbiological quality of shellfish, brought about by treatment with high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 38: 713-727. 79 80. Johnston, M. D., and M. H. Brown. 2002. 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. Journal of Applied Microbiology 92:1066-77. 81. Jones, S. H. 1994. Oyster relay and depuration experiment in New Hampshire, pp. 105-109. In: Watkins W. and S. McCarthy (Eds). Proceedings of the 1994 Vibrio vulnificus Workshop. Office of Seafood, Washington, D.C. . 82. Jorgensen, B. R., and H. H. Huss. 1989. Growth and activity of Shewanella putrefaciens isolated from spoiling fish. International Journal of Food Microbiology 9:51-62. 83. Joseph, S. W., R. R. Colwell, and J. B. Kaper. 1982. Vibrio parahaemolyticus and related halophilic vibrios. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 10:77-124. 84. Kelly, M. T., and A. Dinuzzo. 1985. Uptake and clearance of Vibrio vulnificus from Gulf Coast oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Applied & Environmental Microbiology 50:1548-9. 85. Kelly, M. T., and E. M. Stroh. 1988. Occurrence of Vibrionaceae in natural and cultivated oyster populations in the Pacific Northwest. Diagnostic Microbiology & Infectious Disease 9:1-5. 86. Kennedy, V. S., R. I. E. Newell, and A. F. Eble. 1996. The eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland system:734 p. 80 87. Kingsley, D. H., D. G. Hoover, E. Papfragkou, and G. P. Richards. 2002. Inactivation of hepatitis A virus and a calicivirus by high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Food Protection 65:1605- 1609. 88. Koo, J., M. L. Jahncke, P. W. Reno, X. Hu, and P. Mallikarjunan. 2006. Inactivation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus in phosphate- buffered saline and in inoculated whole oysters by high-pressure processing. Journal of Food Protection 69:596-601. 89. Kueh, C. S., and K. Y. Chan. 1985. Bacteria in bivalve shellfish with special reference to the oyster. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 59:41-7. 90. Lamaury, I., M. Bouregba, A. Mahe, B. Jarrige, J. M. Perez, J. B. Daijardin, and M. Strobel. 1997. Primary Vibrio vulnificus septicemia. 1st documented case in the French West Indies. Presse Medicale 26:316-8. 91. Lau, K. W. K., J. Ren, N. L. M. Wai, S. C. L. Lau, P.-Y. Qian, P.-K. Wong, and M. Wu. 2006. Marinomonas ostreistagni sp. nov., isolated from a pearl- oyster culture pond in Sanya, Hainan Province, China. International Journal of Systematic & Evolutionary Microbiology 56:2271-5. 92. Levine, W. C., and P. M. Griffin. 1993. Vibrio infections on the Gulf Coast: results of first year of regional surveillance. Gulf Coast vibrio working group. Journal of Infectious Diseases 167:479-83. 93. Linton, M., J. M. J. Mc Clements, and M. F. Patterson. 2003. Changes in the microbiological quality of shellfish, brought about by treatment with high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 38:713-727. 81 94. Linton, M., J. M. McClements, and M. F. Patterson. 1999. Survival of Escherichia coli O157 : H7 during storage in pressure-treated orange juice. Journal of Food Protection 62:1038-1040. 95. Lipp, E. K., and J. B. Rose. 1997. The role of seafood in foodborne diseases in the United States of America. Revue Scientifique et Technique 16:620-40. 96. Lopez-Caballero, M. E., M. Perez-Mateos, P. Montero, and A. J. Borderias. 2000. Oyster preservation by high-pressure treatment. Journal of Food Protection 63:196-201. 97. Lorio, J. W., and C. Petrone. 1994. The cultivation of American oysters (Crassostrea virginica), Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, SRAC publication No. 432. 98. Lund, B. M. 2000. Freezing. In: Archer, D L. 2004. Freezing: an underutilized food safety technology? International Journal of Food Microbiology 90:127-38. 99. Mallett, J. C., L. E. Beghian, T. G. Metcalf, and J. D. Kaylor. 1991. Potential of irradiation technology for improved shellfish sanitation. Journal of Food Safety 11:231-245. 100. McLaughlin, J. B., A. DePaola, C. A. Bopp, K. A. Martinek, N. P. Napolilli, C. G. Allison, S. L. Murray, E. C. Thompson, M. M. Bird, and J. P. Middaugh. 2005. Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis associated with Alaskan oysters. New England Journal of Medicine 353:1463-70. 101. Muntada-Garriga, J. M., J. J. Rodriguez-Jerez, E. I. Lopez-Sabater, and M. T. Mora-Ventura. 1995. Effect of chill and freezing temperatures on survival of 82 Vibrio parahemolyticus inoculated in homogenates of oyster meat. Letters in Applied Microbiology 20:225-227. 102. Murchelano, R. A., and C. Brown. 1968. Bacteriological study of the natural flora of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. J Invertebr Pathol 11:520-521. 103. Muth, K. M. 2002. Effects of post-harvest treament requirements on the markets for oysters. Agricultural and resource economics review. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4046/is_200210/ai_n9091534. 104. Muth, K. M., D. W. Anderson, S. A. Kams, B. C. Murray, and J. L. Domanico. 2000. Economic impacts of requiring post-harvest treatment of oysters. Research Triangle Institute, RTI Project Number 7466000. 105. Muth, M. K., S. A. Karns, D. W. Anderson, and B. C. Murray. 2002. Effects of post-harvest treatment requirements on the markets for oysters. Agricultural and resource economics review. 106. National Marine Fisheries Service, N. O. A. A., Commercial Fisheries. 2007. Annual commercial landing statistics. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. 107. Nava Fernandez, L. M., M. C. Parrilla Cerrillo, and N. Salcedo Clavarrieta. 1981. Isolation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus from oysters in Mexico Federal District. Salud Publica de Mexico 23:275-9. 108. NCBI. 2007. Basic Local Alignment Search Tool: Nucleotide BLAST, nucleotide collection (nr/nt). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi. 83 109. Nell, J. A., P. J. O'Riordan, and D. M. Ogburn. 2006. Consumer evaluation of diploid and triploid Pacific oysters subjected to high pressure treatment. Journal of Shellfish Research 25:1101-1104. 110. Nolan, C. M., J. Ballard, C. A. Kaysner, J. L. Lilja, L. P. Williams, Jr., and F. C. Tenover. 1984. Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis. An outbreak associated with raw oysters in the Pacific northwest. Diagnostic Microbiology & Infectious Disease 2:119-28. 111. Oliver, J. D. 2005. Wound infections caused by Vibrio vulnificus and other marine bacteria. Epidemiology & Infection 133:383-91. 112. Oshima, T., H. Ushio, and C. Koizumi. 1993. High-pressure processing of fish and fish products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 4:370-375. 113. Parker, R. W., E. M. Maurer, A. B. Childers, and D. H. Lewis. 1994. Effect of frozen storage and vacuum packaging on survival of Vibrio vulnificus in Gulf Coast oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Journal of Food Protection 57:604-606. 114. Patel, V. J., E. Gardner, and C. S. Burton. 2002. Vibrio vulnificus septicemia and leg ulcer. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 46:S144-5. 115. Patterson, M. F., M. Quinn, R. Simpson, and A. Gilmour. 1995. Sensitivity of vegetative pathogens to high hydrostatic pressure treatment in phosphate buffered saline and foods. Journal of Food Protection 58:524-529. 116. Pfeffer, C. S., M. F. Hite, and J. D. Oliver. 2003. Ecology of Vibrio vulnificus in estuarine waters of eastern North Carolina. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 69:3526-31. 84 117. Pitcher, D. G., N. A. Saunders, and R. J. Owen. 1989. Rapid extraction of bacterial genomic DNA with guanidium thiocyanate. Letters in Applied Microbiology 8:151-156. 118. Pollack, C. V., Jr., and J. Fuller. 1999. Update on emerging infections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection associated with eating raw oysters and clams harvested from Long Island Sound--Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, 1998. Annals of Emergency Medicine 34:679-80. 119. Potasman, I., A. Paz, and M. Odeh. 2002. Infectious outbreaks associated with bivalve shellfish consumption: a worldwide perspective. Clinical Infectious Diseases 35:921-8. 120. Pujalte, M. J., M. Ortigosa, M. C. Macian, and E. Garay. 1999. Aerobic and facultative anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria associated to Mediterranean oysters and seawater. International Microbiology 2:259-66. 121. Radish, H. O., H. Ito, and I. Ishigati. 1992. Distribution of pathogenic vibrios and other bacteria in imported frozen shrimps and their decontamination by gamma irradiation. World J. Microbiol 8:494-499. 122. Rampersad, F. S., S. Laloo, A. La Borde, K. Maharaj, L. Sookhai, J. Teelucksingh, S. Reid, L. McDougall, and A. A. Adesiyun. 1999. Microbial quality of oysters sold in Western Trinidad and potential health risk to consumers. Epidemiology & Infection 123:241-50. 123. Ratner, H. 1987. Vibrio vulnificus. Infection Control 8:430-3. 85 124. Reilly, A., and F. Kaferstein. 1997. Food safety hazards and the application of the principles of the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system for their control in aquaculture production. Aquaculture Research 28:735-752. 125. Rippey, S. R. 1994. Infectious diseases associated with molluscan shellfish consumption. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 7:419-25. 126. Rizvi, A. V., G. Panicker, M. L. Myers, and A. K. Bej. 2006. Detection of pandemic Vibrio parahaemolyticus O3:K6 serovar in Gulf of Mexico water and shellfish using real-time PCR with Taqman fluorescent probes. FEMS Microbiology Letters 262:185-92. 127. San Martin, M. F., G. V. Barbosa-Canovas, and B. G. Swanson. 2002. Food processing by high hydrostatic pressure. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition 42:627-45. 128. Seyderhelm, I., S. Boguslawski, G. Michaelis, and D. Knorr. 1996. Pressure induced inactivation of selected food enzymes. Journal of Food Science 61:308- 310. 129. Shen, X.-s., Y.-q. Cai, W.-h. Fang, R.-r. Gu, and D.-f. Gao. 2005. Identification of Vibrio campbellii isolated from cultured pacific oyster. Wei Sheng Wu Hsueh Pao - Acta Microbiologica Sinica 45:177-80. 130. Shigehisa, T., T. Ohmori, A. Saito, S. Taji, and R. Hayashi. 1991. Effects of High Hydrostatic-Pressure on Characteristics of Pork Slurries and Inactivation of Microorganisms Associated with Meat and Meat-Products. International Journal of Food Microbiology 12:207-216. 86 131. Shiu, S. 1999. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on the bacterial count and quality of shucked oysters. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, Oreg. OSU Interlibrary Loan. in: He, H., R. M. Adams, D. F. Farkas, and M. T. Morrissey. 2002. Use of High-pressure processing for oyster shucking and shelf- life externsion. Journal of Food Science 67: 640-645. 132. Smelt, J. P. P. M. 1998. Review: Recent advances in the microbiology of high pressure processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology 9:152-158. 133. Smiddy, M., L. O'Gorman, R. D. Sleator, J. P. Kerry, M. F. Patterson, A. L. Kelly, and C. Hill. 2005. Greater high-pressure resistance of bacteria in oysters than in buffer. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 6:83-90. 134. Spite, G. T., D. F. Brown, and R. M. Twedt. 1978. Isolation of an enteropathogenic, Kanagawa-positive strain of Vibrio parahaemolyticus from seafood implicated in acute gastroenteritis. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 35:1226-7. 135. Styles, M. F., D. G. Hoover, and D. F. Farkas. 1991. Response of Listeria- Monocytogenes and Vibrio-Parahaemolyticus to High Hydrostatic-Pressure. Journal of Food Science 56:1404-1407. 136. Tamplin, M. L. 2001. Coastal vibrios: Identifying relationships between environmental condition and human disease. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7:1437-1445. 137. Thayer, D. W. 2004. Irradiation of food--helping to ensure food safety. New England Journal of Medicine 350:1811-1812. 87 138. Twedt, R. M., J. M. Madden, J. M. Hunt, D. W. Francis, J. T. Peeler, A. P. Duran, W. O. Hebert, S. G. McCay, C. N. Roderick, G. T. Spite, and T. J. Wazenski. 1981. Characterization of Vibrio cholerae isolated from oysters. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 41:1475-8. 139. Upmann, M., P. Paulsen, S. James, and F. J. M. Smulders. 2000. The microbiology of refrigerated meat. Fleischwirtschaft International 3:38-45. 140. USDAARS. 1997. Irradiation?An Overview of A Safe Alternative to Fumigation. United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct97/irrad.htm. 141. Vanderzant, C., and R. Nickelson. 1972. Survival of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in shrimp tissue under various environmental conditions. Applied Microbiology 23:34-7. 142. Vasconcelos, G. J., and J. S. Lee. 1972. Microbial flora of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) subjected to ultraviolet-irradiated seawater. Applied Microbiology 23:11-6. 143. Webby, R. J., K. S. Carville, M. D. Kirk, G. Greening, R. M. Ratcliff, S. K. Crerar, K. Dempsey, M. Sarna, R. Stafford, M. Patel, and G. Hall. 2007. Internationally distributed frozen oyster meat causing multiple outbreaks of norovirus infection in Australia. Clinical Infectious Diseases 44:1026-31. 144. Wilson, I. G., and J. E. Moore. 1996. Presence of Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in shellfish. Epidemiology & Infection 116:147-53. 145. Yang, S., M. G. Leff, D. McTague, K. A. Horvath, J. Jackson-Thompson, T. Murayi, G. K. Boeselager, T. A. Melnik, M. C. Gildemaster, D. L. Ridings, 88 S. F. Altekruse, and F. J. Angulo. 1998. Multistate surveillance for food- handling, preparation, and consumption behaviors associated with foodborne diseases: 1995 and 1996 BRFSS food-safety questions. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report CDC Surveillance Summaries 47:33-57. 146. Yeung, P. S. M., and K. J. Boor. 2004. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and prevention of foodborne Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections. Foodborne Pathogens & Disease 1:74-88. 89 APPENDIX mCPC Agar (FDA,CFSAN, 2001) Solution 1 Peptone 10 g Beef extract 5 g NaCl 20 g Dye stock solution 1 ml Agar 15 g Distilled water 900 ml Adjust to pH 7.6. Boil to dissolve agar. Cool to 48-55?C. Solution 2 Cellobiose 10 g Colistin 400,000 units Polymixin B 100,000 units Distilled water 100 ml Dissolve cellobiose in distilled water by heating gently, cool, and add antibiotics. 90 1,000X Dye stock solution Bromthymol blue 4 g Cresol red 4 g Ethanol, 95% 100 ml For consistent medium color, use dye solution rather than repeatedly weighing out dry dyes. Dissolve dyes in ethanol for 4% (w/v) stock solution. Using 1 ml of this solution per liter of mCPC agar gives 40 mg bromthymol blue and 40 mg cresol red per liter. Add Solution 2 to cooled Solution 1, mix, and dispense into petri dishes. Final color: dark green to green-brown. No autoclaving required. Store at 4 o C. Discard after 14 days. Tris-EDTA buffer 10 mM Tris 1.21g 1 mM EDTA 0.37g Adjust pH to 8.0 with HCl Distilled water up to 1 L 91 Lysozyme Lysozyme 50 mg Sterile water 1 ml Dissolve lysozyme in water and aliquot (500 ?l/tube), store at -20 o C. Activate at 37 o C for 10 minutes before use. GES solution (Guanidine thiocyanate -EDTA-Sarkosyl) Guanidium thiocyanate 60 g EDTA 3.7 g Water; approximate 20 ml Heat in 65 o C water bath with mixing until dissolved, cool. Add: N-Lauryl Sarcosine (30%) 1.7 ml Make volume up to 100 ml with milli-Q water and filter with 0.045? sterile filter. Store at room temperature. If reagent precipitates, warm up in a water bath at 60 o C before use.