Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in milk in Africa: a generalized logistic mixed-effects and meta-regression modelling
Listeria outbreaks and food recalls is on the raise globally. Milk particularly is highly susceptible to Listeria as its production and storage adequately support Listeria growth. The extent of milk contamination with Listeria monocytogenes ( Lm ) and preventative actions to halt milk associated out...
Saved in:
Published in | Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 12646 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
04.08.2023
Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Listeria
outbreaks and food recalls is on the raise globally. Milk particularly is highly susceptible to
Listeria
as its production and storage adequately support
Listeria
growth. The extent of milk contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes
(
Lm
) and preventative actions to halt milk associated outbreaks in Africa are unknown. Hence, this study aimed at assessing the national and subregional prevalence of
Lm
in milk in Africa and identify impacting factors via generalized logistic mixed-effects (GLMEs) and meta-regression modelling.
Lm
-milk-specific data acquired from primary studies according to standard protocol were fitted using a GLMEs. The GLMEs was subjected to leave-one-study-out-cross-validation (LOSOCV). Factors impacting
Lm
prevalence in milk were assayed via a 1000-permutation-assisted meta-regression-modelling. The pooled prevalence of
Lm
in milk in Africa was 4.35% [2.73–6.86] with a prediction interval (PI) of 0.14–59.86% and LOSOCV value of 2.43% [1.62–3.62; PI: 0.32–16.11%]. Western Africa had the highest prevalence [20.13%, 4.13–59.59], then Southern Africa [5.85%, 0.12–75.72], Northern Africa [4.67%, 2.82–7.64], Eastern Africa [1.91%, 0.64–5.55], and there was no record from Central Africa. In term of country,
Lm
prevalence in milk significantly (p < 0.01) varied from 0.00 to 90.00%. Whereas the
Lm
prevalence was negligibly different (p = 0.77) by milk type, raw-milk had the highest prevalence [5.26%], followed by fermented-milk [4.76%], boiled-milk [2.90%], pasteurized-milk [1.64%], and powdered-milk [1.58%]. DNA extraction approach did not significantly (p = 0.07) affect
Lm
prevalence (Boiling [7.82%] versus Kit [7.24%]) as well as
Lm
detection method (p = 0.10; (ACP [3.64%] vs. CP [8.92%] vs. CS [2.27%] vs. CSP [6.82%]). Though a bivariate/multivariate combination of all tested variables in meta-regression explained 19.68–68.75% (R
2
) variance in
Lm
prevalence in milk, N, nation, and subregion singly/robustly accounted for 17.61% (F
1;65
= 7.5994; p = 0.005), 63.89% (F
14;52
= 4.2028; p = 0.001), and 16.54% (F
3;63
= 3.4743; p = 0.026), respectively. In conclusion, it is recommended that adequate sample size should be prioritized in monitoring
Lm
in milk to prevent spuriously high or low prevalence to ensure robust, plausible, and credible estimate. Also, national efforts/interests and commitments to
Lm
monitoring should be awaken. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41598-023-39955-0 |