These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20501048)

  • 1. Detection of Salmonella in Swine fecal samples by flow-through immunocapture.
    Katsuda K; Kohmoto M; Mikami O
    J Food Prot; 2010 May; 73(5):957-9. PubMed ID: 20501048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Detection of salmonella by flow-through immunocapture real-time PCR in selected foods within 8 hours.
    Warren BR; Yuk HG; Schneider KR
    J Food Prot; 2007 Apr; 70(4):1002-6. PubMed ID: 17477274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Preliminary evaluation of flow-through immunocapture followed by real-time PCR for the detection of Salmonella serovars on tomato surfaces within 8 hours.
    Yuk HG; Warren BR; Schneider KR
    J Food Prot; 2006 Sep; 69(9):2253-7. PubMed ID: 16995533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of four different methods for Salmonella detection in fecal samples of porcine origin.
    Korsak N; Degeye JN; Etienne G; China B; Daube G
    J Food Prot; 2004 Oct; 67(10):2158-64. PubMed ID: 15508624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison between a cultural procedure using Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth and motility enrichments on modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium for Salmonella detection from food and feed.
    Wiberg C; Norberg P
    Int J Food Microbiol; 1996 Apr; 29(2-3):353-60. PubMed ID: 8796434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of cultivation and PCR-hybridization for detection of Salmonella in porcine fecal and water samples.
    Feder I; Nietfeld JC; Galland J; Yeary T; Sargeant JM; Oberst R; Tamplin ML; Luchansky JB
    J Clin Microbiol; 2001 Jul; 39(7):2477-84. PubMed ID: 11427557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of methods for isolation of Salmonella species using modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium and Salmonella-Shigella agar.
    Ruiz Gomez J; Lorente Salinas I; Perez Salmerón J; Simarro Cordoba E; Martinez Campos L
    Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis; 1998 Nov; 17(11):791-3. PubMed ID: 9923522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A real-time PCR assay for the detection of Salmonella in a wide variety of food and food-animal matricest.
    Bohaychuk VM; Gensler GE; McFall ME; King RK; Renter DG
    J Food Prot; 2007 May; 70(5):1080-7. PubMed ID: 17536664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of sample weight and culture methods for the detection of Salmonella in pig feces.
    Champagne MJ; Ravel A; Daignault D
    J Food Prot; 2005 May; 68(5):1073-6. PubMed ID: 15895744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Improved culture methods for isolation of Salmonella organisms from swine feces.
    Hoorfar J; Mortensen AV
    Am J Vet Res; 2000 Nov; 61(11):1426-9. PubMed ID: 11108192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimation of the diagnostic accuracy of the invA-gene-based PCR technique and a bacteriological culture for the detection of Salmonella spp. in caecal content from slaughtered pigs using Bayesian analysis.
    Mainar-Jaime RC; Atashparvar N; Chirino-Trejo M
    Zoonoses Public Health; 2008; 55(2):112-8. PubMed ID: 18234030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The evaluation of a fluorogenic polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of Salmonella species in food commodities.
    Chen S; Yee A; Griffiths M; Larkin C; Yamashiro CT; Behari R; Paszko-Kolva C; Rahn K; De Grandis SA
    Int J Food Microbiol; 1997 Apr; 35(3):239-50. PubMed ID: 9105933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison between semisolid Rappaport and modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis media for the isolation of Salmonella spp. from foods and feeds.
    Perales I; Erkiaga E
    Int J Food Microbiol; 1991 Oct; 14(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 1742172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparative studies of diagnostic bacteriological methods for the recovery of Salmonella from faecal samples from flocks of layers.
    Braun C; Kostka V; Balks E; Redmann T; Helmuth R
    Zentralbl Veterinarmed B; 1998 May; 45(4):245-50. PubMed ID: 9640105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of 2 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella detection in poultry feces.
    Soria MC; Soria MA; Bueno DJ
    Poult Sci; 2012 Mar; 91(3):616-26. PubMed ID: 22334736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Primers specific for the fimbrial major subunit gene stdA can be used to detect Salmonella enterica serovars.
    Chuang YC; Yang CH; Lin JH; Wang KC; Cheng CP; Yeh KS
    J Food Prot; 2008 Jun; 71(6):1108-13. PubMed ID: 18592734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of target sequences for the polymerase chain reaction-based detection of Salmonella in artificially contaminated beef.
    de Almeida MV; Silva A; Nero LA
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2014 Feb; 11(2):111-8. PubMed ID: 24102080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Interlaboratory validation of a real-time PCR 24-hour rapid method for detection of Salmonella in foods.
    Cheng CM; Van Khanh T; Lin W; Ruby RM
    J Food Prot; 2009 May; 72(5):945-51. PubMed ID: 19517719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Validated PCR assay for the routine detection of Salmonella in food.
    Bansal NS; Gray V; McDonell F
    J Food Prot; 2006 Feb; 69(2):282-7. PubMed ID: 16496566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Salmonella contamination of pigs and pork in an integrated pig production system.
    Korsak N; Jacob B; Groven B; Etienne G; China B; Ghafir Y; Daube G
    J Food Prot; 2003 Jul; 66(7):1126-33. PubMed ID: 12870743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.