Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 43 issue 2 (june 2009) : 107·110

MOLECULARCHARACfERl7ATlON OF SALMONEU.AISOlATES OFPOULTRYBY ARBITRARILY PRIMEDPOLYMERASECHAINRFACfION (AP-PCR)*

J. S. Arora, M. K. Saxena a~ld V. D. P. Rao
1College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, G BPant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar-263145, India.
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Arora S. J., Rao P. D. V. a~ld Saxena K. M. (2024). MOLECULARCHARACfERl7ATlON OF SALMONEU.AISOlATES OFPOULTRYBY ARBITRARILY PRIMEDPOLYMERASECHAINRFACfION (AP-PCR)*. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 43(2): 107·110. doi: .
The established culture based methods used to detect Salmonellae in animal feed are laborious,
time-consuming, and often not specific enough. Several alternative analysis strategies have been
proposed, and PCR in particular has been found to be a highly specific molecular diagnostic
tool. Although this technique can be extremely effective on pure solutions of nucleic acids, its
sensitivity may be reduced dramatically when it is applied directly to complex biological samples.
Arbitrarily Primed Polymerase Chain Reaction (AP-PCR) is another tool for molecular typing
which is found to be more specific than RAPD. AP-PCR is appreciably faster than other typing
systems. The method is more susceptible to technical variation than routine PCR employing
primers directed at known sequences.
  1. D'Aoust, J.Y. and Sewell A.M. (1986) Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51: 1220-1223.
  2. Davies, R.H. and Hinton M.H. (2000). Salmonella in Animal Feed. CABI, Wallingford, England. p. 285-300.
  3. Hilton, A.C. and Penn, C.w. (1988) J. Appl. Microbiol. 85: 933-940.
  4. Hoorfar, J.P. et al., (2000) J. Clin. Microbiol. 38 : 3429-3435.
  5. Jones, P.w.P.etal., (1982) J. Hyg. (London) 88: 255-263.
  6. Jutras, E.M. et al., (1995) J. Microbiol. Methods. 24: 55-63.
  7. Lantz, P.G. et al., (2000) Biotechnol. Annu. Rev. 5 : 87-130.
  8. Rahn, K.etal., (1992) Mol. Cell Probes 6: 271-279.
  9. Stone, G.G. et al., (1994) J. Clin. Microbiol. 32: 1742-1749.
  10. Wang, R.E et al., (1992) Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 2827-2831.
  11. Wilson, I.G. (1997) Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63 : 3741-3751.
  12. Wilsqn, K. (1987) In Current Protocols in Molecular Biology; unit 2.4.1 Wiley, New York

Editorial Board

View all (0)