Beachlover, The E. coli tests for presence in
Post# of 9122
(Total Views: 1112)
Posted On: 05/20/2017 11:45:28 AM
Re: beachlover12 #3652
Beachlover,
The E. coli tests for presence in food are completely different and only qualify for the presence, not quantify amounts. There is also no need to run a relatively expensive test such as the N-Assay when a simple test containing reagents is sufficient.
Here's an example of what I mean: testing for contamination in ground beef is often done by means of a simple reagent strip that does not detect actual E. coli, which is difficult to detect in a sample of 250 grams of meat, but which reacts essentially with the presence of a shell or husk that is discarded by E. coli when it divides. What happens is that the reagent in a detection strip changes color with contact with the husk, which occurs in many, many, multiples of the E. coli cells and therefore is detected much more easily. Since the husk will only manifest from the presence of the specific bacteria, the color change is clear evidence of E. coli contamination.
Contrast the ability of the N-Assay to detect, identify, quantify, and determine antibiotic sensitivity (meaning which work and which don't) with a simple evidence of presence test for E. coli in meat and you'll see why the N-Assay won't compete in food testing. No one treats presence of E. coli in food supplies with antibiotic, so that capability is not important. ANY E. coli detected in food supplies is enough for a recall, so the N-Assay's quantification ability is also not important there.
The N-Assay will fit with clinical needs and potentially for environmental testing for water quality and proximity of fecal material leaks near drinking water sources and recreational areas.
It's a big subject.
Scott
The E. coli tests for presence in food are completely different and only qualify for the presence, not quantify amounts. There is also no need to run a relatively expensive test such as the N-Assay when a simple test containing reagents is sufficient.
Here's an example of what I mean: testing for contamination in ground beef is often done by means of a simple reagent strip that does not detect actual E. coli, which is difficult to detect in a sample of 250 grams of meat, but which reacts essentially with the presence of a shell or husk that is discarded by E. coli when it divides. What happens is that the reagent in a detection strip changes color with contact with the husk, which occurs in many, many, multiples of the E. coli cells and therefore is detected much more easily. Since the husk will only manifest from the presence of the specific bacteria, the color change is clear evidence of E. coli contamination.
Contrast the ability of the N-Assay to detect, identify, quantify, and determine antibiotic sensitivity (meaning which work and which don't) with a simple evidence of presence test for E. coli in meat and you'll see why the N-Assay won't compete in food testing. No one treats presence of E. coli in food supplies with antibiotic, so that capability is not important. ANY E. coli detected in food supplies is enough for a recall, so the N-Assay's quantification ability is also not important there.
The N-Assay will fit with clinical needs and potentially for environmental testing for water quality and proximity of fecal material leaks near drinking water sources and recreational areas.
It's a big subject.
Scott
(8)
(0)Nanologix Inc (NNLX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼