Table 2.
Sample | Real-time PCR (log CFU/g) | CT valuesa | Viable count (log CFU/g)b | Relative accuracy (%)c |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.32 | 30.57 ± 0.56 | 2.88 | 115.3 |
2 | 5.37 | 24.29 ± 0.77 | 5.49 | 97.8 |
3 | 7.13 | 18.89 ± 0.14 | 7.03 | 101.4 |
4 | 7.34 | 18.27 ± 0.17 | 7.38 | 99.5 |
5 | 3.47 | 30.11 ± 0.10 | 3.57 | 97.2 |
6 | 3.85 | 28.93 ± 0.47 | 4.42 | 87.1 |
7 | 7.06 | 19.11 ± 0.30 | 7.06 | 100 |
8 | 7.66 | 17.28 ± 0.20 | 7.61 | 100.7 |
9 | 7.47 | 17.85 ± 0.21 | 7.31 | 102.2 |
10 | 3.84 | 28.96 ± 0.19 | 4.54 | 84.7 |
11 | 5.36 | 24.32 ± 0.16 | 5.60 | 95.6 |
12 | 7.40 | 18.06 ± 0.17 | 7.20 | 102.8 |
13 | 6.76 | 20.02 ± 0.32 | 7.29 | 92.8 |
Mean and standard deviation of three CT values.
Viable counts were determined using MA and identification of colonies.
Degree of correspondence between the results obtained with a conventional plating technique and with a real-time PCR assay. The relative accuracy is expressed as the percentage of numbers of log (CFU/g) calculated by the real-time PCR assay versus the conventional method (45).