Welcome to the Microbiology Information

The U.S. health officials were the first to be alerted to the current peanut-based salmonella outbreak through a special government computer network called PulseNet.

The only problem with the system is that it relies on doctors testing patients and it takes interviews with patients to identify the food source. Here is an explanation of how this system works:

Q: What is PulseNet?

A: It’s a national network of public health labs coordinated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When state and local health officials get lab results of people sick with food poisoning, they post information about cases on the WebBoard, the PulseNet listserv. State and national health officials use this information to look for patterns.

PulseNet gets its name from a lab technology called pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which enables investigators to do DNA “fingerprinting” of the infection bacteria and its strain subtype.

It’s somewhat like an FBI database that can compare fingerprints from an arrest record in California to fingerprints at the scene of a crime in Florida and determine if it’s the same crook. It takes about two days to run a genetic fingerprint on a sample. Each year, PulseNet identifies more than 300 clusters of patients infected with salmonella, E. coli, shigella and listeria.

Q: How comprehensive is it?

A: This network can’t catalog every case in an outbreak. Only some people who get sick go to doctors, and not all doctors run tests to confirm what infection the patient has. Health officials estimate that the actual number of illnesses in an outbreak may be 10 times higher than the lab network reports.

But by detecting an outbreak while it’s still going on and then identifying the food that’s spreading it, health officials believe they can prevent countless illnesses and some deaths.

Other countries have similar systems. The CDC routinely shares data with Canada, but not with other countries.

Q: How long does it take to identify a foodborne germ?

A: It generally takes two to four weeks from the time the first person in a cluster gets ill until the cluster is detected by PulseNet. In the case of the peanut butter outbreak, CDC first detected a national pattern in November, the month after substantial numbers of lab-tested illnesses first emerged.

CDC officials did not disclose the outbreak until January. They said it took more than a month for health officials to interview sick patients to determine that peanut butter was the food they all had in common. Then, a test from a peanut butter container in Minnesota found the outbreak strain of salmonella.

Q: Can’t this process be sped up?

A: The PulseNet system itself is relatively rapid. But investigation timelines are driven by what patients and doctors do about illnesses, and how quickly health officials in individual states react.

“The PulseNet system is a great system. The problem is it’s a 22nd century system resting on pillars of epidemiologic research that go back to the 1800s,” said Bill Marler, a Seattle plaintiff’s attorney who specializes in national food poisoning cases.

Such limitations may explain why Florida has had no lab-confirmed cases in the current salmonella outbreak. Unlike some other states, Florida does not require doctors and hospitals to send salmonella samples to a state lab for analysis and does not budget to handle such a workload. At least 270 samples that may be the outbreak strain have been collected, but only 25 were sent to a state lab for genetic fingerprinting.

Q: How long has this network been in place?

A: PulseNet was launched in 1996, but didn’t have the participation of all states until 2002. The cost is shared by the CDC and states. CDC says it spends about $5.6 million annually, but has no figure for what states spend.

The origin of the system lies with a 1993 outbreak of E. coli food poisoning in the western United States. CDC successfully used DNA fingerprinting to nail the strain of E. coli O157:H7 that sickened hundreds and killed four children; it was traced to hamburger patties served at Jack in the Box restaurants. That’s when the idea of a collaborative system among the states and federal government began to take shape.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/pulsenet/

Onchocerciasis is an infection caused by Onchocerca volvulus, a parasite nematode worm transmitted to humans by a species of black fly of the Simulium genus whose larvae develop in fast-flowing rivers.

Infected subjects suffer not only from severe skin lesions but also eye damage that can lead to irreversible of−loss of sight, hence the name ‘river blindness’. A huge majority (99%) of the 37 million people
infected by the parasite live in SubSaharan. Ivermectin, a medicine capable of killing the parasite
embryos (the microfilariae) circulating in the organism of patients and temporarily interrupting the nematode’s reproduction, is the only treatment used for onchocerciasis control.

Since 1995, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) has been covering 19 of the
continent’s 28 countries hit by the disease. Access to this treatment is possible for 70 million people and has
significantly diminished the onchocerciasis-induced morbidity. However, the doubling of cases of infection in
certain communities of Ghana between 2000 and 2005, in spite of annual treatments, created fear of the emergence of ivermectin-resistant strains. Such apprehension appears particularly justified in that a high degree of therapeutic cover is achieved during mass distribution campaigns and hence only a tiny part of the parasite population targeted remains unexposed to drug treatment pressure.

Since 1994, a team of IRD researchers, working jointly with Cameroon researchers and others from McGill University of Montreal, has been monitoring a cohort of Cameroon patients benefiting from repeated treatments with ivermectin. Regular parasite sampling from these subjects was performed over a 13-year period in order to determine the changes in the genetic structure of Onchocerca volvulus
populations. Each occasion involved measurement of the genotype frequency of heterozygotes and homozygotes for the gene coding β-tubulin, a protein involved in the organization of the parasite’s cells. The team focused on this particular gene because it acts as a marker of resistance to ivermectin in other nematode species parasitic on cattle. As a control, they monitored the changes in genotype frequency
of two other genes, known for their high evolutionary stability over time. The proportion of homozygotes and heterozygotes for these two genes remained stable throughout the investigation, but the situation was
completely different for the β-tubulin gene.

Between 1994 and 1998, the percentage of parasites showing a genotype homozygous for this gene fell from 79 to 31% in subjects receiving quarterly treatment with ivermectin. At the same time, the proportion of heterozygous genotypes changed in the opposite sense, rising from 21 to 69%. These results could be the sign of adaptation of nematode worm populations to repeated treatments using this drug. The research team inferred that the parasites showing a genotype homozygous for β-tubulin are more susceptible to
it. As courses of treatment progressed, they would therefore gradually disappear, to the benefit of the more resistant heterozygous strains. Ivermectin’s effect on microfilariae, other than its direct one, is to prevent them from leaving the uterus of adult worms, for several months after treatment: this is its embryostatic effect. Post-treatment, there were more microfilariae in the uterus of homozygous female parasites than in those of heterozygous females.

This could mean that, in the latter, the microfilariae succeed in leaving the uterus, as they usually do in the absence of treatment, and therefore that the embryostatic effect of ivermectin would be diminished. Contrary to the effect anticipated, the repeated exposure to treatments could in this way select those worms more able to keep up the production of new generations. Nevertheless, the drug’s direct action on the moment, there is no reason to call into question the current control strategy against the disease based on annual treatments with ivermectin.

Affirmation of the results requires further investigations1, starting from new cohorts subjects infected by Onchocerca volvulus who have not yet been treated with ivermectin. This type of approach should bring more information on the risks of the parasite’s resistance to this drug. If such risks were confirmed, then the whole onchocerciasis control strategy would probably have to be revised. Nevertheless, for many years to come, ivermectin could well remain the sole drug applicable for mass treatment in measures to control river blindness.

Here is a load of crap, pajamas that is designed to protect against MRSA by incorporating silver into its fabric at a level of 2%.

They claim that by having 2% silver woven into its fabric, it can protect against the hospital super bug MRSA. It has already gone on sale UK with M&S the first British retailer to stock the £45 Sleep Safe pajamas and is trialing them at 100 stores.

Silver is known for its infection-fighting properties and silver-laced nightwear has already been tested in a handful of hospitals.

But campaigners called the pajamas a gimmick and said the only way to tackle MRSA was by making hospitals cleaner.

MRSA

MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a bacterium that can live completely harmlessly on the skin of healthy people but can lead to serious infection.

MRSA infections can cause a broad range of symptoms depending on the part of the body that is infected. These may include surgical wounds, burns, catheter sites, eye, skin and blood.

Dr Mark Enright, a microbiologist at Imperial College London, said that the pajamas would reduce the risk of a patient getting a skin infection that enters a wound.

The problem lies within the hospitals. They are dirty and it should not be up to the public to safeguard themselves

Tony Kitchen of MRSA Support

A spokesman for M&S said: “The fabric that the pajamas are made of has been clinically proven to reduce the risk of MRSA by killing bacteria that come into contact with the fabric.

“Clinical trials are currently ongoing and are three quarters of the way through. The interim results were positive.”

They are only available for men at present and are produced using a fabric which 2% silver has woven into it.

Katherine Murphy, from the Patients’ Association, said: “We welcome the fact these are going on sale, but it shows how desperate the public is.”

However, Tony Kitchen of MRSA Support said: “It sounds like a gimmick - it cannot be a super suit and probably doesn’t make a jot of difference.

“The problem lies within the hospitals. They are dirty and it should not be up to the public to safeguard themselves, it’s the ethos of the hospital that needs to change.”

A spokesman added that if the pajamas did prove effective then they ought to be provided by the health service. rather than paid for by the patient.

Streptococcus throat has become harder to fight using penicillin or amoxicillin, but that’s not because the Streptococci have developed a resistance to those drugs. Instead, more than 50 percent of children have bacteria in their throats that protect strep germs.

New versions of antibiotics called cephalosporins are targeting the other bacteria, improving the odds of successful treatment fivefold.

Strep throat is the second-most-common reason children get antibiotics. But the gold standard antibiotics they get don’t always clear up the infection.

Pediatric infectious disease specialist Michael Pichichero, of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, says, says the standard strep drugs — amoxicillin and penicillin — fail in about 25 percent of kids.

“Strep is not actually resistant to penicillin or amoxicillin so, that cannot explain the failures that we’re seeing,” he says.

Instead, other bacteria are the problem. More than half of kids have bacteria in their throats that protect strep germs.

Dr. Pichichero says, “This is very much different from 20 or 30 years ago where almost all children treated with penicillin and amoxicillin would be cured.”

But his research shows newer drugs can kill strep. One in four kids fails treatment with penicillin. One in six fails newer drugs called cephalosporins. Only one in 20 fail the newer versions of those drugs. The newer antibiotics only need to be taken for four to five days, rather than the 10-day course of the older drugs.

BACKGROUND:
Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center have found that a short treatment of a newer class of antibiotics is more effective than the traditional 10-day dose of older antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin to treat strep throat. The Rochester scientists reviewed over 47 studies over the past 35 years involving more than 11,000 children and found that 25 percent of children treated for strep throat with penicillin ended up back in the doctor’s office within three weeks.

HOW ANTIBIOTICS WORK:
Infections are caused by single-celled organisms called bacteria, which can sometimes evade the body’s immune system and begin reproducing.

Antibiotics kill those harmful bacteria in various ways, such as preventing a bacterium from turning glucose into energy, or preventing it from construct a cell wall. The bacteria die instead of reproducing. Antibiotics are like selective poisons, because they target bacteria and not the body’s own cells.

They are not effective against viruses, however. Unlike bacteria, a virus isn’t a living, reproducing lifeform, just a piece of DBA or RNA. A virus injects its DNA into a living cell and the cell itself reproduces more of the viral DNA. There is nothing to “kill,” so antibiotics don’t work on viruses.

ABOUT STREP THROAT:
Most sore throats are caused by viruses and generally clear up without medical treatment.

Strep throat is an infection caused by a type of bacteria, and thus needs treatment with antibiotics. Symptoms include fever, stomach pain and red swollen tonsils. The bacteria can be transferred to others by sneezing, coughing or shaking hands.

A doctor will usually take a throat culture to test for strep throat. Lack of treatment can lead to other health problems, such as rheumatic fever (which can damage the heart), scarlet fever, blood infections or kidney disease.

DRUG RESISTANCE:
Bacteria are highly adaptive, and over time they naturally develop resistance, protecting them from incoming germs (and antibiotics) and making them harder to kill.

Repeated exposure to penicillin and amoxicillin can result in a throat full of bacteria that can shield strep germs from the older drugs.

The surviving bacteria then reproduce more and become more dominant. Sometimes parents discontinue antibiotic medication prematurely when their children begin to feel better, so the strep germ isn’t entirely killed off, leading to much more severe infections requiring the use of even stronger drugs later on.

did you know that red wine is known to have multiple health benefits. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia have found that red wine may also protect humans from common food-borne diseases.

Researchers Azlin Mustapha, associate professor of food science in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, and Atreyee Das, a doctoral student in the food science program, are conducting on-going studies examining the inhibitory effects of numerous types of red wines, as well as grape juice, against pathogens and probiotic bacteria, which naturally reside in the intestinal tract and can be beneficial in combating, among other things, high cholesterol and tumors.

They found that red wines – Cabernet, Zinfandel and Merlot in particular – have anti-microbial properties that defend against food-borne pathogens and don’t harm naturally useful bacteria like probiotic bacteria.

E. coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes and H. pylori were among the pathogens examined. E. coli and Listeria can be fatal. Mustapha said the most promising results involved Helicobacter pylori, which can be transmitted via food and water and is the main cause of stomach ulcers.

“Our study is a little different than those previously reported in the media. Those studies promote moderate red wine consumption for cardiovascular diseases,” she said. “We went a step farther and asked: If red wine is already good for cardiovascular diseases, what about food-borne pathogens? If you get a food-borne illness and drink red wine, will that help decrease the symptoms a little bit? This study showed that the four probiotics tested weren’t inhibited by red wines; the pathogens were.”

In lab tests, Mustapha and Das focused on ethanol, pH levels and reseveratrol, which is a phytochemical found in grape vines and the skin of grapes. It also is responsible for the red coloring in red wines. They found that in addition to ethanol, pH and reseveratrol also may inhibit food-borne pathogens.

Numerous white wines also were tested, but yielded no positive results, the researchers said.

“It’s not just ethanol in the red wine that is inhibitory toward food-borne pathogens, but other factors which include the pH of the wine – because wines are a little acidic, and possibly the phytochemicals may have an effect,” said Mustapha, noting that grape juice produces similar results.

“We hypothesize that these phytochemicals, reseveratrol being the main one, also play a role not just as antioxidants but also may have some inhibitions against food-borne pathogens. Now, we’re concentrating mainly on the reseveratrol effects on these pathogens.”

The findings were recently presented at the Institute of Food Technologists annual conference in Chicago. http://munews.missouri.edu

According to New Scientist, “A comprehensive analysis of both the molecular genetic and phenotypic responses of any organism to the space flight environment has never been accomplished because of significant technological and logistical hurdles.”……until now.

Bacteria flown on the space shuttle mutated in ways that made them nearly three times more deadly to mice, reports a new study. While the bugs are also likely to affect astronauts’ health, the research team found clues that may help render them harmless.

Astrobiologists have long been worried that the low-gravity conditions of space could make disease-causing microbes that hitch-hike on shuttle missions mutate in unpredictable ways. To investigate, Cheryl Nickerson at Arizona State University in Tempe, US, and her colleagues launched flasks of the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium into space on the shuttle Atlantis in September 2006.

The shuttle returned after 12 days, during which time the microbes had altered the way they express 167 genes compared with bacteria that remained on Earth. The team found that these space-mutated bugs were almost three times as likely to kill infected mice compared with their ground-grown counterparts.

That could be bad news if the results hold true for astronauts, since some experiments suggest the weightlessness of space travel suppresses the immune system.

But the news is not all bad. Nickerson and her colleagues also identified the protein, called Hfq, believed to be behind the change. “An overwhelming number of the [affected] genes are regulated by Hfq,” she says.

Archilles’ Heel
Strains of Salmonella without normally functioning Hfq did not show the gene expression changes when they were tested under microgravity conditions in the lab. Nickerson says this knowledge could one day be leveraged to “design targeted strategies and countermeasures to mitigate infectious disease risks to the crew during future missions”.

The work may also help combat Salmonella on Earth. Micro-organisms growing in a liquid in microgravity experience low fluid forces that are similar in many ways to those that the bugs encounter on Earth inside their hosts, she explains. “An exciting part of this work is the opportunity to use spaceflight as a novel research platform for innovations in infectious disease control here on Earth,” she told.

Robert McLean, a microbiologist at Texas State University in San Marcos, US, who has also flown bacterial experiments on space shuttles, is impressed with the new study.

“On Earth, we’re so used to gravity that we ignore it, but for the first time we’re seeing that gravity may be needed for genes to be expressed,” he told New Scientist. “I think that transcends the space programme, and tells us something hugely important about biology in general.”

The effort to find preserved samples of the 1918 influenza virus has been a pursuit of both historical and medical importance.

The influenza pandemic in 1918 was the most devastating single disease outbreak in modern history, and examining the virus that caused it may help prepare for, and possibly prevent, future pandemics. When the complete sequence of the 1918 virus was published in 2005, it represented a watershed event for influenza researchers worldwide.

An article in the journal Antiviral Therapy, scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, narrate the story of how scientists discovered samples of the 1918 strain in fixed autopsy tissues and in the body of a woman buried in the Alaskan permafrost.

The article places this discovery in the context of decades of research into the cause of pandemic influenza, and the authors detail the strange convergence of events that allowed them to recover and sequence the virus in the first place. Its genetic material is so fragile that it should not have survived for days, let alone decades.

In a mass grave in a remote Inuit village near the town of Brevig Mission, a large Inuit woman lay buried under more than six feet of ice and dirt for more than 75 years. The permafrost plus the woman’s ample fat stores kept the virus in her lungs so well preserved that when a team of scientists exhumed her body in the late 1990s, they could recover enough viral RNA to sequence the 1918 strain in its whole entirety. This remarkable good fortune enabled these scientists to open a window onto a past pandemic. It could also help mankind gain a foothold for preventing a future one.

On the morning during August, several students from Northern Lehigh High School showed symptoms of staphylococcus infections or possibly respiratory “walking pneumonia.”

Later in the day, Principal Aileen Yadush wrote a letter to parents and had it posted on the school district’s Web site under a bold red link reading, “Alert!: Staphylococcus Infection Letter.”

The letter mentions the source of the infections was unclear but they narrowed it down to the school’s field house weight room.

The field house was closed and a professional cleaning crew was hired to scrub every surface and every piece of equipment.

The letter explained what type of bacteria it is - staphylococcus aureus, how to look for symptoms and what to do in case something unusual is found on students’ bodies.

The letter also assured parents and students “we will take every possible precaution in maintaining their safety and health.” which is a bold statement.

In a recent environmental survey conducted by University of Arizona researchers, surfaces in teachers’ classrooms came in as the Number 1 workplace for germs which is nearly 20 times higher than those found in lawyers’ offices, and seven times higher than doctors’ offices.

With over 2,000 parents questioned in the survey, 14 percent said they send their children to school despite running a fever higher than 100 degrees.

Educating children on proper hand washing and taking basic sanitation measures could hold down the germ level.

Bethlehem Health Bureau Director Judy Maloney says the bureau and local schools work clean-hand in clean-hand using a program called Germ City: Clean Hands, Healthy People.

The bureau also mailed a letter to principals at elementary and middle schools.

That letter urges schools to contact parents and let them know how important it is to keep sick children home.

Dr. Bonnie Coyle, director of St. Luke’s Hospital’s Community Health Department in Fountain Hill, says direct education programs are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to corral germs.

“If there is a child that has a disease that is a community health threat,” she says, “we get involved.”

In New Jersey, Mary Van Horn, supervisor of the Warren County Board of Health in Washington, says, “My department focuses on flu and pneumonia immunization, but good hand washing is so important.”

Coyle ventures one reason why.

“I think we’re seeing more emerging infectious disease threats,” Coyle says. “As the world becomes smaller through international travel, we’re seeing more drug-resistant tuberculosis. Then there are the things that have always been there (flu, staphylococcus, meningitis and other infectious diseases.)”

Coyle also says that since the 9/11 terrorism attacks, bioterrorism is becoming an issue.

“It’s certainly not a crisis,” she soothes, “but it’s something schools need to keep in mind.”

Source

While America’s food supply is the safest in the world, food poisoning is responsible for approximately 76 million illnesses in the United States each year. In fact, it is estimated that 60% or more of the raw poultry sold today probably has disease-causing bacteria. Anyone eating food contaminated by certain bacteria, parasites, or viruses can get food poisoning. Certain factors such as age and physical condition can make certain people more susceptible to food poisoning than others. Infants, pregnant women, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems are at greatest risk.

For most people in good condition, food poisoning is usually neither long lasting nor life-threatening. However, to less healthy individuals it can become a serious health threat, accounting for approximately 5,000 deaths each year.

The good news is that by taking simple precautionary steps while purchasing, handling, and preparing food you can prevent most cases of food poisoning in the home.

What causes food poisoning? Food poisoning is most commonly caused by bacteria, parasites, or viruses that may be present in the food that you have eaten. You may have heard the names of many of these organisms. They include Escherichia coli (E coli), Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium botulinum, Shigella, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, Trichinella, and Hepatitis A virus, just to name a few. They can be present in a wide range of food including red meat, poultry, milk and other dairy products, eggs, unpasteurized vegetable juices and ciders, spices, chocolate, seafood, and even water.

These organisms may be present on your food when it is bought or can get into the food, including cooked food, if the food comes into contact with raw meat juices on dirty utensils, cutting boards, or countertops used to prepare contaminated food. That’s why it is important not only to thoroughly cook your food, but to wash your hands, utensils, and countertops, before and after you handle raw foods.

What are the symptoms? Symptoms will vary depending on the type and amount of contaminants eaten. Some people may get ill after ingesting only a small amount of harmful bacteria, while others may remain free of symptoms after eating larger quantities. The most common symptoms of food poisoning include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain (cramps), fever, headache, and fatigue. Symptoms may develop as soon as 30 minutes after eating tainted food, but more commonly do not develop for several days or weeks. Symptoms of viral or parasitic food poisoning may not appear for several weeks, while some toxins in fish may take only a few minutes to cause symptoms.

If you have botulism, you probably will not have a fever and the symptoms may include blurred vision, fatigue, dry mouth and throat.

How food poisoning is diagnosed Food poisoning is often suspected when several people become ill after eating the same meal. To diagnose the cause of the illness, your doctor will need to know the symptoms and what was eaten right before the illness occurred. The doctor may need samples of the food, bowel movements, or vomit. These samples can be tested in a laboratory to determine if the food was contaminated and identify the organism causing the illness.

How is it treated? If the symptoms are severe, the victim should see a doctor or get emergency care. Treatment depends on the severity and cause of the food poisoning. Generally, for mild cases of food poisoning, the doctor will recommend for you to rest, drink fluids to prevent dehydration due to vomiting or diarrhea, and to follow a specific diet. It usually only takes about 1 to 5 days to recover from food poisoning.

If you have botulism, your doctor will prescribe an antitoxin. Other types of food poisoning have no antidote. Antibiotics are usually not helpful in treating food poisoning. Medicine to stop vomiting and stomach cramping may be given.

Prevention is the best approach to avoid food poisoning Most cases of food poisoning can be prevented. Below is a list of a few simple Do’s and Don’ts to help you avoid food-borne illness in the home.

● Do wash your hands, utensils, cutting boards, and countertops between different foods ● Do hrefrigerate or freeze perishables right away (Refrigerator temperature should be 41Ëš F and freezer 0ËšF) ● Do thoroughly cook foods. Cook beef, lamb, and pork to an internal temperature of 160ËšF; whole poultry and thighs to 180ËšF; poultry breasts to 170ËšF, ground chicken or turkey to 165ËšF ● Do hrefrigerate leftover foods as soon as possible; leftovers shouldn’t remain unrefrigerated longer than 2 hours. ● While food shopping, do select frozen foods and perishables such as meat, poultry, and fish last- before checking out ● Do use smooth cutting boards made of hard maple or plastic that are free of cracks and crevices ● Do store raw meats in leak-proof containers or on the bottom of the hrefrigerator to prevent juices from dripping on other foods ● Don’t allow uncooked meats, meat juices, or unwashed fruits and vegetables to come in contact with either cooked or washed foods ● Don’t buy frozen seafood if the packages are open, torn, or crushed on the edges ● Don’t buy food in cans that are bulging or dented, or in jars that are cracked ● Don’t ever buy outdated food. Check the “use by” or “sell by” dates ● Don’t buy unpasteurized milk or dairy products ● Do not buy hrefrigerated or frozen products that are not displayed at the proper temperature ● Do not let small children put foods away unsupervised

More information about this important health subject can be obtained from the following sources: Gateway to Government Food Safety Information www.foodsafety.gov U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wh-food.html Food Safety and Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/consumerpubs.htm

Supported as an educational service by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. This information is not intended for use as medical advice. You should discuss this information with your doctor.

Avaraham Henoch, MD 564 West 160th Street New York, NY 10032 Phone: (212) 740-6400

A new rapid test that will allow Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 to be detected within 25 minutes is set to revolutionze the industry. The test developed by 4 Lothian scientists are set to make them a huge fortune after the groundbreaking breakthrough.

Unlike normal routine analysis which takes up to 14 days for a confirmation within a laboratory, this new test only takes 25 minutes. It is similar to the pregnancy style test in application and has a sensitivity level of 100 cfu/mL.

At a cost of £45, the device has the potential to rapidly diagnose the cause and allow specific antibiotics to be administered immediately for treatment.

The test kits were invented by the former research scientist Dr Neil Polwart from the Ministry of Defense who worked on chemical and biological weapon detection.

Dr Polwart, from Polmont, near Falkirk, came up with the idea after his wife, who was employed in the water industry, complained that it could take up two weeks to get legionella confirmed to specie levels by the testing laboratory. The revolutionary test is now set to make millions of pounds for the firm he set up with three colleagues in 2003 called Hydrosense.

The firm is now on course to make more than £500,000 in the US alone in its first year, and has just been launched in the UK. The tests can be used in any sources such as swimming pools and spas, as well as in water cooling towers.

According to the business development manager of Hydrosense, Brendan Cairns, he says “There are around two million tests for legionella carried out every year, so that gives an indication of how useful it could be.”

“It could save lives, because it cuts the waiting time to identify and confirm Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 which causes the majority of the infections.”

The advantage of the new test is that it is rapid and provides a clear indirect visual indication of the presence of the bacterium which causes over 90% of Legionnaires’ disease deaths. It is the only kit in the world market designed to be used at the sample point.

Dr Giles Edwards, director of the Scottish Legionella Reference Laboratory, said the new product was a step forward.

“If you are investigating an outbreak, or responsible for maintaining a cooling tower, quicker response times will make the job much easier,” he said.

However, Dr Edwards said the test would still require confirmation.

For more information, you can visit Hydrosense or download the pdf file.