Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review Topical Sections

Outbreaks of listeriosis associated with deli meats and cheese: an overview

  • Received: 12 May 2016 Accepted: 04 July 2016 Published: 08 July 2016
  • Microbial pollution of foods by undesirable microorganisms is a global food safety issue. One of such undesirable microorganism is the psychrotrophic, pathogenic specie of Listeria—Listeria monocytogenes that survives at low temperature. The source of contamination of this microbe into foods can be many including the food processing facilities due to improper sanitation procedures. The review of the literature on this important topic shows there are increasing concerns as regards contamination from Listeria in foods leading to many cases of listeriosis disease and food recalls. Ready-to-eat products, such as delicatessen (deli) meats and soft cheeses have repeatedly been identified by foodborne disease control programs as sources of outbreaks and products that put humans at risk for listeriosis. Although, most listeriosis cases tend to be sporadic in occurrence, outbreaks do occur frequently. Due to the global phenomenon of outbreaks associated with Listeria in deli meats and cheese, it requires an urgent attention from national and international authorities through rigorous procedures for its identification, surveillance procedures that can bring more awareness to the general public. There is also a need for more reports on the cases of Listeria particularly in developing countries, the standardization of identification procedures, and an improvement on national control programs by adequate surveillance.

    Citation: Dele Raheem. Outbreaks of listeriosis associated with deli meats and cheese: an overview[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 230-250. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.230

    Related Papers:

    [1] Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Musa Rabiu, Jummy F. David, Jude D. Kong . Assessing the impact of adherence to Non-pharmaceutical interventions and indirect transmission on the dynamics of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8905-8932. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021439
    [2] Jing Liao, Jinling Wang, Jiarong Li, Xin Jiang . The dynamics and control of a multi-lingual rumor propagation model with non-smooth inhibition mechanism. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5068-5091. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024224
    [3] Fulian Yin, Xueying Shao, Jianhong Wu . Nearcasting forwarding behaviors and information propagation in Chinese Sina-Microblog. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5380-5394. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019268
    [4] Yi Wang, Shicheng Zhong, Guo Wang . Dynamic selection of clarification channels in rumor propagation containment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14995-15017. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023672
    [5] Fulian Yin, Hongyu Pang, Lingyao Zhu, Peiqi Liu, Xueying Shao, Qingyu Liu, Jianhong Wu . The role of proactive behavior on COVID-19 infordemic in the Chinese Sina-Microblog: a modeling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7389-7401. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021365
    [6] Xiaonan Chen, Suxia Zhang . An SEIR model for information propagation with a hot search effect in complex networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 1251-1273. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023057
    [7] Junli Liu . Threshold dynamics of a time-delayed hantavirus infection model in periodic environments. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4758-4776. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019239
    [8] Qiao Xiang, Tianhong Huang, Qin Zhang, Yufeng Li, Amr Tolba, Isack Bulugu . A novel sentiment analysis method based on multi-scale deep learning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8766-8781. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023385
    [9] Curtis L. Wesley, Linda J. S. Allen, Michel Langlais . Models for the spread and persistence of hantavirus infection in rodents with direct and indirect transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(1): 195-211. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.195
    [10] Jun Zhai, Bilin Xu . Research on meme transmission based on individual heterogeneity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5176-5193. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021263
  • Microbial pollution of foods by undesirable microorganisms is a global food safety issue. One of such undesirable microorganism is the psychrotrophic, pathogenic specie of Listeria—Listeria monocytogenes that survives at low temperature. The source of contamination of this microbe into foods can be many including the food processing facilities due to improper sanitation procedures. The review of the literature on this important topic shows there are increasing concerns as regards contamination from Listeria in foods leading to many cases of listeriosis disease and food recalls. Ready-to-eat products, such as delicatessen (deli) meats and soft cheeses have repeatedly been identified by foodborne disease control programs as sources of outbreaks and products that put humans at risk for listeriosis. Although, most listeriosis cases tend to be sporadic in occurrence, outbreaks do occur frequently. Due to the global phenomenon of outbreaks associated with Listeria in deli meats and cheese, it requires an urgent attention from national and international authorities through rigorous procedures for its identification, surveillance procedures that can bring more awareness to the general public. There is also a need for more reports on the cases of Listeria particularly in developing countries, the standardization of identification procedures, and an improvement on national control programs by adequate surveillance.


    The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic not only has social effects on the healthcare system, but also public opinion guidance. Under the life-disease dual pressure, people are more likely to be affected by fake news [1]. We need to conduct more in-depth research on information propagation mechanisms to propose more effective intervention strategies.

    It is significant to get deep insight into the information ecology on social media platforms. The concept of "information ecology" was first proposed by Davenport [2], who stated that the information environment consists of other people, information technology and information regulations, which remarkably affect the formation of public opinion and sentiment. Nowadays, it is mainly reflected as "topic communities" constructed by Internet technology, such as the "hotspots" on the Chinese Sina microblogging platform and the "trending" topics on Twitter and Facebook. Such algorithm mechanisms realize the comprehensive ordering of information presented to reflect public opinion related to a particular emergency, and they represent a new paradigm for the "pseudo-environment" proposed by Lippman and Curtis [3]. Pieces of information subject to hot topics construct a "pseudo-environment" for netizens to improve their cognition, and for simplicity. Therefore, in the omni-media era, the two approaches to accessing information are divided into direct and indirect, where the former way means that netizens receive information from connected friends, and the latter means that they receive information from hot topics suggestions.

    This paper discusses a data-model dual-drive research approach that has been applied to develop intervention strategies in response to public emergencies. First, we regard the "forwarding behavior" as an essential way for netizens to spread information, and the data form to describe its propagation effect is temporal forwarding quantities. Based on the characteristics of this kind of data form, we propose a susceptible-forwarding-immune pseudo-environment (SFI-PE) dynamic model with direct and indirect behaviors. Second, we introduce external interventions into the SFI-PE model to simulate their effects on information propagation, termed the macro-controlled SFI-PE (M-SFI-PE) model. To guide public communication, we implement qualitative and quantitative analysis to help design optimal intervention strategies.

    The subsequent materials are organized as follows. In Section 2, we review relevant literature from past years. In Section 3, we establish the SFI-PE model based on the coexistence of direct and indirect propagation modes and subsequently detail the construction of an M-SFI-PE dynamic model that considers external interventions. In Section 4, we present the numerical analysis based on real data from the Chinese Sina microblogging platform to validate our SFI-PE model, as well as parameter sensitivity analysis. Section 5 draws some conclusions and discusses the optional strategy for public opinion guidance.

    Since the outbreak of COVID-19, more and more scholars have begun focusing on its social impact and conducting further research, such as research on health analysis and prediction [4], sentiment analysis for social media platforms [5] and public opinion guidance [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Recently, Bibi et al. [5] proposed a model that detected COVID-19-related fake news with an accuracy of 86.12% and outperformed standard machine learning algorithms. Yin et al. [12] analyzed public opinion toward COVID-19 vaccination and proposed several recommendations to remind governments to build confidence in a targeted way.

    The epidemiological model is the most widely used method to analyze information propagation qualitatively and quantitatively. In infectious disease epidemiology, pathogen transmission can involve direct and indirect pathways. For the direct pathways, the susceptible-infected (SI) model [13,14], the susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) model [15], the susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model [16,17], the susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model [18] and the susceptible-infected-recovered-susceptible (SIRS) model [19] are classical and fundamental in the area of research on infection between populations. Researchers have further studied pathogen transmission through the environment for the indirect pathways [20,21,22,23]. For instance, Cortez et al. [24] proposed an approach with direct versus environmentally mediated indirect transmission pathways, consequently contributing to identifying how differences in the transmission pathways could result in quantitatively different epidemiological dynamics, and how those differences could be used to identify the transmission pathway from population-level time-series data. Vasilyeva et al. [25] studied the relative influence of the different etiological and behavioral aspects on these pathways to support the intervention.

    Due to similarities between information propagation and the spread of infectious diseases in populations, Yin et al. [26] inherited and developed the traditional SIR model to propose a susceptible-forwarding-immune (SFI) model for the purpose of studying the dynamics of populations by modeling the propagation process. Similarly, Yu et al. [27] considered two pathways of information propagation, namely, those among friends and marketing accounts, to establish a rumor propagation model. These previous studies paid attention to the dynamics and attributes of people without the information environment. Therefore, our work focuses on the synergistic effect of humans and the environment as based on direct and indirect propagation behaviors to fill in the research gap in the field of information propagation.

    To construct the research framework for information propagation, we analyzed the operation mechanisms on typical social media platforms. We found that direct and indirect modes are different but common ways to promote information propagation in the real world. Specifically, the direct mode based on social relations, such as relations with fans, refers to the situation in which users can directly see and forward messages from their friends. And, the indirect mode emphasizes the impact of the environment, such as the trending topics sorted by an algorithmic mechanism, wherein users are required to enter the topic details page to contact relevant messages from strangers. Therefore, we developed a novel SFI-PE dynamic model to consider the environmental impact and constructed an information propagation system with the direct and indirect propagation behaviors, as shown in Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Schematic diagram to illustrate how the information propagation considers direct and indirect transmission modes on the social media platforms. The direct mode refers to the conditions under which users in the susceptible state (S) are affected by users in the forwarding state (F) through social relations. The indirect mode refers to the conditions under which users in the susceptible state (S) are affected by information in topic communities (B), such as "hotspots" and keyword searches.

    Assuming the total number of users (N) remains unchanged in a closed environment, we divided them into three states: the susceptible state S in which users are unaware of the information but have opportunities; the forwarding state F in which users have forwarded the information to influence susceptible users; the immune state I in which users have already forwarded the information but are now inactive, or they are subjectively not interested in the information. We define S(t), F(t), and I(t) as the numbers of people in the respective states at time t and each user is in a unique state. Therefore, S(t)+F(t)+I(t)=N. Specially, we denote B as the environmental impact, and it involves the relevant information in topic communities. Table 1 shows the parameter interpretations of the SFI-PE model.

    Table 1.  Parameter definitions for the SFI-PE model.
    Parameter Interpretation
    βF The average direct exposure rate, i.e., the average rate at which susceptible users can access information through social relations.
    βB The average indirect exposure rate, i.e., the average rate at which susceptible users can access information through the topic communities.
    pF The average direct forwarding probability, i.e., the average probability that susceptible users see and forward the information through social relations.
    pB The average indirect forwarding probability, i.e., the average probability that susceptible users see and forward the information from the topic communities.
    αF The average immune rate, i.e., the average rate at which forwarding users become inactive, is related to the behavioral law of users.
    αB The average metabolic rate, i.e., the average rate at which information in topic communities gradually becomes inactive, is related to the algorithmic law of social media platforms.
    γ The average transfer rate, i.e., the average rate at which the information is filtered and presented in topic communities generated by social media algorithms.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The form of differential equations related to the SFI-PE model is described as follows:

    {dS(t)dt=βFS(t)F(t)βBS(t)B(t)dF(t)dt=pFβFS(t)F(t)+pBβBS(t)B(t)αFF(t)dI(t)dt=(1pF)βFS(t)F(t)+(1pB)βBS(t)B(t)+αFF(t)dB(t)dt=γF(t)αBB(t). (3.1)

    For the direct information transmission relying on social relations, an active forwarding user will contact an average number of βFN users per unit time, and the probability that the contacted user is susceptible is S(t)/N; so, an active forwarding user will contact βFS(t) susceptible users, among whom pFβFS(t) will choose to forward the information. For the indirect pathway of relying on topic communities, a piece of information will reach βBS(t) susceptible users, among whom pBβBS(t) will choose to forward the information.

    Traditionally, βFS(t)F(t) susceptible users are directly affected by forwarding users, among whom pFβFS(t)F(t) will choose to forward the information and transfer from the susceptible state (S) to the forwarding state (F). In our dynamic system, βBS(t)B(t) susceptible users are indirectly affected by information in the topic communities; among them, pBβBS(t)B(t) susceptible users will transfer to the forwarding state (F). However, (1pF)βFS(t)F(t)+(1pB)βBS(t)B(t) susceptible users are not interested in the information, so they transfer to the immune state (I). Considering that the information in the topic communities and the users in the forwarding state are no longer to influence others after the active exposure period, there are αBB(t) pieces of information that reach the end of the information life cycle, and αFF(t) forwarding users transfer to the immune state (I). Under the Internet algorithm, γF(t) pieces of information will be screened and presented in topic communities per unit time.

    We introduced external interventions into the SFI-PE model to create an M-SFI-PE dynamic model, as shown in Figure 2. This model was developed in consideration of the facts that external interventions take place in every link in the dynamic process and that the research on them is of great importance to guide public opinion. For negative emergencies such as rumors, effective external interventions can reverse the information propagation to reduce social panic and reconcile social contradictions. For positive events and official rumor-refuting information, effective external interventions can promote information propagation to help create a positive social atmosphere and guarantee social order.

    Figure 2.  Schematic diagram to illustrate the external interventions on information propagation using the SFI-PE model. The specific interventions are embodied as the thin arrow lines from M to the parameters on each transition.

    We denote M as external interventions. First, external interventions take place in the direct transitions from the susceptible state (S) to the forwarding state (F), and from the susceptible state (S) to the immune state (I). Similarly, external interventions also take place in the indirect transitions wherein the susceptible users (S) transfer to the forwarding state (F) or the immune state (I) after coming into contact with information in the environment (B). Third, external interventions can regulate the information transition, as indicated by the dotted line from the forwarding state (F) to the environment module (B) in Figure 2. However, the average immune rate αF and the average metabolic rate αB are mainly related to the behavior rules and the algorithm settings, which are hard to manipulate using external measures.

    Table 2 shows the new parameter interpretations for the M-SFI-PE model. The definitions of parameters βF, βB, pF, pB and γ are shown in Table 1.

    Table 2.  New parameter definitions for the M-SFI-PE model.
    Parameter Interpretation
    βMF The coefficient for the effects of external interventions on βF, i.e., the effects of external interventions on the direct access to information relying on social relations.
    βMB The coefficient for the effects of external interventions on βB, i.e., the effects of external interventions on the indirect access to information relying on topic communities.
    pMF The coefficient for the effects of external interventions on pF, i.e., the effects of external interventions on the direct forwarding probability relying on social relations.
    pMB The coefficient for the effects of external interventions on pB, i.e., the effects of external interventions on the indirect forwarding probability relying on topic communities.
    γM The coefficient for the effects of external interventions on γ, i.e., the effects of external interventions on the process of filtering and presenting information in topic communities.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The form of differential equations related to the M-SFI-PE model is described as follows:

    {dS(t)dt=(βFβMF)S(t)F(t)(βBβMB)S(t)B(t)dF(t)dt=(pFpMF)(βFβMF)S(t)F(t)+(pBpMB)(βBβMB)S(t)B(t)αFF(t)dI(t)dt=(1pF+pMF)(βFβMF)S(t)F(t)+(1pB+pMB)(βBβMB)S(t)B(t)+αFF(t)dB(t)dt=(γγM)F(t)αBB(t). (3.2)

    Here, external interventions can reverse the information propagation or positively promote it. For the direct mode, βMF, i.e., the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on βF, changes the average direct exposure rate to βFβMF; pMF, i.e., the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on pF, changes the average direct forwarding probability to pFpMF. For the indirect one, γM, i.e., the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on γ, changes the average transfer rate to γγM; βMB, i.e., the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on βB, changes the average indirect exposure rate to βBβMB; pMB, i.e., the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on pB, changes the average indirect forwarding probability to pBpMB.

    In the information propagation process, the cumulative forwarding population characterizes the scale of the propagation community. Further deduced from the master equations of the SFI-PE model, the equation of the forwarding cumulant without external interventions can be given by

    CSFIPE(t)=t0pFβFS(t)F(t)dt+t0pBβBS(t)B(t)dt. (3.3)

    Similarly, the equation of the forwarding cumulant with external interventions, as deduced from the master equations of the M-SFI-PE model, can be given by

    CMSFIPE(t)=t0(pFpMF)(βFβMF)S(t)F(t)dt+t0(pBpMB)(βBβMB)S(t)B(t)dt. (3.4)

    With all of this in place, we construct the key indices to develop the evaluation criteria for the intervention methods for public communication. First, the outbreak peak of forwarding Fmax represents the intensity of information propagation, and it refers to the maximum number of current forwarding users F(t). Second, the final forwarding scale Cs represents the breadth of information propagation, and it refers to the maximum number of the cumulative forwarding users CSFIPE(t), or CMSFIPE(t) when information propagation ends. Third, the peak time of forwarding tFmax represents the speed with which public opinion explodes to its zenith, and it refers to the time to reach Fmax. Finally, the public communication reproduction number R0 measures whether public opinion is likely to break out, and it refers to the average number of secondary spreaders caused by each forwarding user when external interventions are excluded and all users are susceptible.

    Especially, the public communication reproduction number R0 originates from the epidemiology field to measure whether an infectious disease is likely to break out. Thus, we refer to the calculation of the primary reproduction ratio to obtain its expression [28], and we rewrite it as follows. If the number of forwarding users per unit time decreases, public opinion will not break out. That is, public opinion is on the wane when S(t)=S0. Because F(t)B(t)>0, we deduce that

    R0=pFβFS0+pBβBS0αF. (3.5)

    The size of R0 determines the speed of the outbreak without external interventions. When R0<1, the number of forwarding users decreases rapidly; hence, public opinion will never break out. However, when R0>1, the forwarding population grows exponentially and public opinion is bound to explode. That is, for the positive events with R0<1, the external interventions can help to promote the outbreak of public opinion, while, for the negative emergencies with R0>1, the external interventions can help to suppress them.

    To analyze the information propagation dynamics, we selected the Chinese Sina microblogging platform, i.e., the most popular social media platform in China, as the typical case for numerical analysis. We screened two specific events related to the regular epidemic prevention and social security measures on the Chinese Sina microblogging platform and collected the real and accurate forwarding time and the corresponding copywriting to implement data fitting. To fit our model with the propagation data, we used the Least Squares method (LS) to estimate the parameters and the initial susceptible population S0. The parameter vector can be set as Θ = (βF,βB,pF,pB,αF,αB,γ,S0), and the corresponding numerical calculation based on the parameter vector for Ck is denoted by fC(k,Θ). Then, we obtain the LS error function

    LS=Tk=0|fC(k,Θ)Ck|2, (4.1)

    where Ck denotes the actual cumulative forwarding quantity corresponding to the sampling point k, where k=0,1,2,,T; additionally, we set the beginning time to 0 and the sampling interval to 1 hour.

    Furthermore, we introduced the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) [29] to measure the goodness of data fitting and validate the efficiency of our model, which has a benchmark of 0. The principle is that the closer the result of the MAPE is to 0, the better the performance. We adopted the MAPE as an indicator because it has a very intuitive interpretation in terms of relative error; due to its definition, its use is recommended for tasks in which sensitivity to relative variations is more important than sensitivity to absolute variations, which is in line with our purpose. The MAPE is defined as follows:

    MAPE=100%mnmk=1ni=1|ˆykiykiyki| (4.2)

    where m is the number of data groups, n is the number of sampling points in the data group, yki is the ith value of the kth group of empirical data and ˆyki is the predicted value of yki.

    According to Figure 3, the fitting curves approximately coincide with the corresponding data points. For the positive event, MAPE=0.0024%, and for the negative event, MAPE=0.0035%, which indicates that our model can perfectly depict the information propagation. By comparing the estimated values, we can form some conclusions. First, γ is small, indicating that only a tiny amount of forwarded information would be screened and presented in topic communities. Second, βF and βB are determined by the density of the propagation network, and βF>βB, which explains that it is easier for users to access information directly on the homepages than indirectly by entering the public pages. Third, pF is smaller than pB, so the susceptible users are more proactive and willing to forward information when coming into contact with the relevant information via topic communities. Finally, αF, which is related to the behavior rules, is larger than αB, indicating that the exposure period in topic communities is longer.

    Figure 3.  Numerical data fitting results: (a) for the positive event, namely, "we will definitely provide meals for children, " βF=9.4000×104, βB=4.1900×104, pF=0.4610, pB=0.8500, αF=1.5274, αB=0.1080, γ=0.1000 and S0=8000; (b) for the negative emergency, namely, "Shanghai Jinshan infant isolation point, " βF=1.3400×104, βB=1.200×104, pF=0.2200, pB=0.7290, αF=1.3384, αB=0.1740, γ=0.1040 and S0=80,000. The purple and blue stars denote the actual cumulative quantity of forwarding, and the purple and blue lines represent the estimated ones.

    We further conducted numerical experiments to compare the data fitting performance of the traditional SFI model and our SFI-PE model. In detail, we set the values of parameters with the same definition in these two models to be the same. According to Figure 4, the fitting results for the SFI model largely deviate from the real points. By calculation, the MAPE for the positive event was found to equal 0.1085%, and that for the negative event was found to equal 0.4845%. Obviously, the performance of our model is better than that of the traditional one.

    Figure 4.  Numerical data fitting results for the SFI model: (a) for the positive event, β=9.4000×104, p=0.4610, α=1.5274 and S0=8000; (b) for the negative emergency, β=1.3400×104, p=0.2200, α=1.3384 and S0=80,000. The purple and blue stars denote the actual cumulative quantity of forwarding, and the purple and blue lines represent the estimated ones.

    Table 3 shows the values of indices. For the positive and negative events, the public communication reproduction number R0>1; so, the forwarding populations grew exponentially in our case studies, indicating that public opinion is bound to break out. Moreover, the outbreak peak of forwarding for the negative event Fmax=3938.7000 was found to be larger than that for the positive event Fmax=822.6215, indicating that the information intensity for the negative event is larger than that for the positive one. In addition, the time to reach the outbreak peak of forwarding for the positive event tFmax=42 was found to be earlier than that for the negative event tFmax=71. Finally, we calculated the final forwarding scale for the negative event Cs=23,188, which was found to be larger than that for the positive event Cs=3853.3000. This explains that the negative event has a broader propagation scale than the positive one.

    Table 3.  Values of indices for two events.
    Fmax Cs tFmax R0
    For the positive event 822.6215 3853.3000 42 4.1351
    For the negative event 3938.7000 23,188 71 6.9910

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In order to analyze how the parameters (βB, βF, pB, pF, γ, αB, αF, S0) affect information propagation and thus help to optimize design intervention strategies, we applied partial rank correlation coefficients (PRCCs) [30] and a single-parameter change method for further study. We took the positive event as an example to analyze its effects on the outbreak peak of forwarding Fmax, the final forwarding scale Cs and the public communication reproduction number R0. The experimental results of the relevant sensitivity analyses are shown in Figure 5.

    Figure 5.  PRCC results with indices Fmax, Cs and R0 for different parameters.

    The results indicate that, regarding the intensity of information propagation, increasing pF, S0, βF and pB while decreasing αF facilitates its improvement. The opposite conditions would cause it to decrease. Regarding the breadth of information propagation, increasing pF, S0 and pB while decreasing αB and αF helps to extend it. Otherwise, it would shrink. If public opinion erupts, increasing pF, S0, βB, βF and pB while decreasing αF will further promote it or restrain the explosion of public opinion.

    Specifically, the average direct exposure rate βF, average direct exposure rate βB, average direct forwarding probability pF and average indirect forwarding probability pB are essential parameters affecting information propagation. Thus, we conducted further research on their respective impacts, as shown in Figure 6.

    Figure 6.  Influence single-parameter changes on different variables: (a) only βF changes; (b) only βB changes; (c) only pF changes and (d) only pB changes. The default values were set as βF=9.4000×104, βB=4.1900×104, pF=0.4610, pB=0.8500, γ=0.1000, αF=1.5274, αB=0.1080 and S0=8000.

    We compared the results in Figure 6 and drew some conclusions. First, the parameters related to the environment (βB,pB) were found to have a minimal effect on the outbreak peak of forwarding Fmax and a moderate effect on the final forwarding scale Cs. The parameters related to social relations (βF,pF) were found to have a more significant effect on the outbreak peak of forwarding Fmax. Especially, the parameter βF mainly affects the forwarding scale in the early stage and has an inverse impact on the final forwarding scale Cs, while the significant influence of pF on the forwarding scale is the whole process. Therefore, we can formulate intervention strategies according to the results of parameter sensitivity analysis.

    We took the above cases as the base scenario and assumed the new parameters of the M-SFI-PE model appropriately. Below, we compare five new scenarios with the base one to simulate and investigate the influence of different intervention measures on our dynamic system.

    According to the numerical results for the SFI-PE model, we set the default values as the control group. New parameter values for the M-SFI-PE model were set as one-tenth of the default parameters. The negative sign reflects the promotion effect of external interventions on information propagation. For instance, we set βMF=9.4000×105 as Experimental Group (a), βMB=4.1900×105 as Experimental Group (b), pMF=0.0461 as Experimental Group (c), pMB=0.0850 as Experimental Group (d) and γM=0.0100 as Experimental Group (e). We used Matlab to conduct simulation analysis for the M-SFI-PE model; the results are shown in Figure 6.

    It can be seen in Figure 7(a), (b) that, in the transition from the susceptible state (S) to the forwarding state (F), only Experimental Group (c) was able to accelerate the decline of S(t). Experimental Groups (a) and (c) were able to increase the maximum value of F(t) and reach the outbreak peak of information propagation faster. The other intervention methods were found to have relatively weak effects. As for Figure 7(b), (c), in the transition from the forwarding state (F) to the immune state (I), the number of current immune users I(t) increased simultaneously under the influence of pMF. Nevertheless, the final scale of immune users did not significantly expand, so the proportion of influential spreaders can be expected to increase correspondingly. As for Figure 7(d), all five of the intervention methods were found to contribute to increasing B(t); among them, adjusting pMF and γM was found to have a better effect.

    Figure 7.  Experimental results for the positive event: (a) the variation in the number of current susceptible users S(t); (b) the variation in the number of current forwarding users F(t); (c) the variation in the number of current immune users I(t) and (d) the variation in the amount of information in topic communities B(t).

    Table 4 shows the values of the post-intervention indices for the positive event.

    Table 4.  Values of the post-intervention indices for the positive event.
    Fmax Cs tFmax
    Control Group 822.6215 3853.3000 42
    Experimental Group (a) 934.6235 3822.2000 37
    Experimental Group (b) 830.9647 3886.1000 41
    Experimental Group (c) 1027.2000 4175.7000 37
    Experimental Group (d) 833.0052 3920.3000 41
    Experimental Group (e) 830.9647 3886.1000 41

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We can draw the following conclusions by comparing the results in Table 4. First, Experimental Group (c) had the best intervention effect on Fmax in terms of increasing the intensity of information propagation. The order of intervention methods is pMF>βMF>pMB>βMBγM. Second, in terms of expanding the breadth of information propagation, Experimental Group (c) had the best intervention effect on Cs when the parameter pMF was adjusted. The order of intervention methods is pMF>pMB>βMBγM. Third, in terms of accelerating the peak of information propagation by decreasing the value of tFmax, the order of intervention methods is pMFβMF>βMBpMBγM.

    Similarly, we set βMF=1.3400×105 as Experimental Group (a), βMB=1.200×105 as Experimental Group (b), pMF=0.0220 as Experimental Group (c), pMB=0.0729 as Experimental Group (d) and γM=0.0104 as Experimental Group (e). The positive sign reflects the suppression effect on information propagation. Figure 8 shows the simulation results.

    Figure 8.  Experimental results for the negative event: (a) the variation in the number of current susceptible users S(t); (b) the variation in the number of current forwarding users F(t); (c) the variation in the number of current immune users I(t) and (d) the variation in the amount of the information in topic communities B(t).

    It can be seen in Figure 8(a), (b) that, in the transition from the susceptible state (S) to the forwarding state (F), Experimental Groups (a) and (c) were able to decelerate the decline of S(t), decrease the maximum value of F(t) and postpone the time to reach the outbreak peak of information propagation. The significance of intervention effects is pMF>βMF. As for Figure 8(b), (c), in the transition from the forwarding state (F) to the immune state (I), I(t) decreased simultaneously under the influence of pMF and βMF. Nevertheless, the final scale of immune users did not significantly shrink, so the proportion of influential spreaders can be expected to decrease correspondingly. As for Figure 8(d), all five of the intervention methods were able to decrease B(t). Among them, γM adjustment was found to have the best effect, followed by pMF.

    Table 5 shows the values of the post-intervention indices for the negative event.

    Table 5.  Values of the post-intervention indices for the negative event.
    Fmax Cs tFmax
    Control Group 3938.7000 23,188 71
    Experimental Group (a) 3628.2000 24,135 80
    Experimental Group (b) 3773.4000 22,778 72
    Experimental Group (c) 3292.4000 22,149 80
    Experimental Group (d) 3747.0000 22,397 72
    Experimental Group (e) 3773.4000 22,778 72

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We can draw the following conclusions by comparing the results in Table 5. First, Experimental Group (c) had the best intervention effect on Fmax in terms of decreasing the intensity of information propagation. The order of intervention methods is pMF>βMF>pMB>βMBγM. Second, in terms of narrowing the breadth of information propagation, Experimental Group (c) had the best intervention effect on Cs when the parameter pMF was adjusted. The order of intervention methods is pMF>pMB>βMBγM. Third, in terms of decelerating to the peak of public communication by increasing the value of tFmax, the order of intervention methods is pMFβMF>βMBpMBγM.

    In the era of the post-COVID-19 waves, guiding public opinion has become the most urgent and long-term important issue due to the contradiction between epidemic prevention and production recovery. Our SFI-PE dynamic model introduces environmental factors into the traditional SFI model to explore the law of information propagation with the direct and indirect propagation behaviors on social platforms. The M-SFI-PE model was developed as an extension of the SFI-PE model to further analyze the effects of external interventions on information dissemination and help to design optimal intervention strategies. We validated our models by selecting two quintessential public health emergency messages and numerically fitting the results to the actual propagation data. The results of further simulations indicate that adjusting pMF, the coefficient for the effects of external interventions on pF, is the best intervention approach for public communication, and that pF is the most crucial parameter among them.

    The practical method based on our experimental results for promoting information propagation is to improve the forwarding willingness of susceptible users by increasing the average direct forwarding probability pF. Media, for example, many platforms of which have photos and documentary descriptions that can show the specific implementation scenario of social security measures, can thus enhance the content of emotional resonance and sense of communication. Moreover, we can simultaneously adjust the average direct exposure rate βF, average indirect exposure rate βB, average indirect forwarding probability pB and average transfer rate γ to integrate their influences on public communication. For instance, in the early stage, the media can cooperate with opinion leaders with many followers and a larger γ to obtain a larger βF and accelerate the expansion of the public communication scale. Later, the public concerns can be extracted to form a general entry that is put at the top of the hot search list to make it more eye-catching, thus increasing βB and pB. Regarding rumor suppression, to decrease pF, pop-up windows can be set as a warning to inform the users of the distortion of such information. In addition, seditious opinion leaders should be prevented from entering information propagation in the early stage to obtain a smaller βF. Later, it is also necessary to monitor relevant terms in real time to prevent secondary outbreaks caused by related derivative events appearing on public pages, such as "trending" and "hotspots, " thus decreasing βB and pB.

    Our research promotes network self-regulation and can be used to develop effective intervention strategies for promoting or suppressing events. However, in the discussed scenario, the repeated propagation behaviors of users is an essential factor contributing to the secondary outbreak of events, which affects the efficiency of external interventions and thus needs to be considered. Therefore, our future research will focus on the dynamics driven by repeated propagation behaviors and the corresponding intervention means.

    This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (Nos. 2021YFF0901705, 2021YFF0901700); the State Key Laboratory of Media Convergence and Communication, Communication University of China; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the High-Quality and Cutting-Edge Disciplines Construction Project for Universities in Beijing (Internet Information, Communication University of China).

    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Bortolussi R (2008) Listeriosis: A Primer. Can Med Assoc J 179: 795–7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081377
    [2] Vázquez-Boland JA, Kuhn M, Berche P, et al. (2001) Listeria pathogenesis and molecular virulence determinants. Clin Microbiol Rev 14: 584–640. doi: 10.1128/CMR.14.3.584-640.2001
    [3] Weller D, Andrus A, Wiedmann M, et al. (2015) Listeriabooriae sp. nov. and Listeria newyorkensis sp. nov., from food processing environments in the USA. Int J Syst Evol Micr 65: 286–292.
    [4] Hernandez-Milian A, Payeras-Cifre A (2014) What is new in listeriosis? Biomed Res Int 2014: 358051.
    [5] WHO Working Group (1988) Foodborne listeriosis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 66: 421–428.
    [6] De Valk H, Jacquet C, Goulet V, et al. (2005) Surveillance of Listeria infections in Europe. Euro Surveill 10: 572.
    [7] Travier L, Lecuit M (2014) Listeria monocytogenes ActA: a new function for a ‘classic’ virulence factor. Curr Opin Microbiol 17: 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2013.11.007
    [8] Lianou A, Sofos JN (2007) A review of the incidence and transmission of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat products in retail and food service environments. J Food Prot 70: 2172–2198.
    [9] Gottlieb SL, Newbern EC, Griffin PM, et al. (2006) Multistate outbreak of listeriosis linked to turkey deli meat and subsequent changes in US regulatory policy. Clin Infect Dis 42: 29–36. doi: 10.1086/498113
    [10] WHO/FAO (2004) Risk assessment of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods: technical report. Available from: ftp: //ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/y5394e/y5394e.pdf.
    [11] De Noordhout CM, Devleesschauwer B, Angulo FJ, et al. (2014) The global burden of listeriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 14: 1073–1082. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70870-9
    [12] Goulet V, Jacquet C, Vaillant V, et al. (1995) Listeriosis from consumption of raw-milk cheeses. Lancet 345: 1581–1582.
    [13] Siegman-Igra Y, Levin R, Weinberger M, et al. (2002) Listeria monocytogenes infection in Israel and review of cases worldwide. Emerg Infect Dis 8: 305–310. doi: 10.3201/eid0803.010195
    [14] Aureli P, Giovanni C, Caroli D, et al. (1997) An outbreak of febrile gastro-enteritis associated with corn contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes. N Engl J Med 243: 1236–41.
    [15] Ericsson H, Eklow A, Danielsson-Tham ML, et al. (1997) An outbreak of listeriosis suspected to have been caused by rainbow trout. J Clin Microbiol 35: 2904–2907.
    [16] Lyytikäinen O, Autio T, Maijala R, et al. (2000) An outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes serotype 3a infections from butter in Finland. J Infect Dis 181: 1838–1841. doi: 10.1086/315453
    [17] Kathariou S, Graves L, Buchrieser C, et al. (2006) Involvement of closely related strains of a new clonal group of Listeria monocytogenes in the 1998-99 and 2002 multistate outbreaks of foodborne listeriosis in the United States. Foodbourne Pathog Dis 3: 292–302. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2006.3.292
    [18] Dauphin G, Ragimbeau C, Malle P (2001) Use of PFGE typing for tracing contamination with Listeria monocytogenes in three cold-smoked salmon processing plants. Intl J Food Microbiol 64: 51–61. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00442-6
    [19] Makino SI, Kawamoto K, Takeshi K, et al. (2005) An outbreak of food-borne listeriosis due to cheese in Japan, during 2001. Intl J Food Microbiol 104: 189–196. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.02.009
    [20] deValk H, Jacquet C, Goulet V, et al. (2005) Surveillance of Listeria infections in Europe. Euro Surveill. 10: 572.
    [21] McIntyre L, Wilcott L, Monika N (2015) Listeriosis Outbreaks in British Columbia, Canada, Caused by Soft Ripened Cheese Contaminated from Environmental Sources, Biomed Res Int 2015: 131623.
    [22] Mead PS, Dunne, EF, Graves L, et al. (2006) Nationwide outbreak of listeriosis due to contaminated meat. Epidemiol Infect 134: 744–751. doi: 10.1017/S0950268805005376
    [23] Bille J, Blanc DS, Schmid H, et al. (2005) Outbreak of human listeriosis associated with tomme cheese in northwest Switzerland 2005. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeensur les maladies transmissibles. European communicable disease bulletin 11: 91–93.
    [24] Pichler J, Much P, Kasper S, et al. (2009) An outbreak of febrile gastroenteritis associated with jellied pork contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Wiener Klinishe Woschenschcrift 121: 149. doi: 10.1007/s00508-009-1137-3
    [25] Koch J, Dworak R, Prager R, et al. (2010) Large listeriosis outbreak linked to cheese made from pasteurized milk, Germany, 2006-2007. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 1581–1584. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2010.0631
    [26] Currie A, Farber JM, Nadon C, et al. (2015) Multi-province listeriosis outbreak linked to contaminated deli meat consumed primarily in institutional settings, Canada, 2008. Foodborne Pathog Dis 12: 645–652. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2015.1939
    [27] Friesema IH, Kuiling S, van der Ende A, et al. (2015) Risk factors for sporadic listeriosis in the Netherlands, 2008 to 2013. EuroSurveill 20: 21199. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES2015.20.31.21199
    [28] Pichler J, Appl G, Pietzka A, et al. (2011) Lessons to be learned from an outbreak of foodborne Listeriosis, Austria 2009–2010. Food Protection Trends 31: 268–273.
    [29] Popovic I, Heron B, Covacin C (2014) Listeria: an Australian perspective (2001–2010). Foodborne Pathog Dis 11: 425–432. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2013.1697
    [30] Gaul LK, Farag NH, Shim T, et al. (2013) Hospital-acquired listeriosis outbreak caused by contaminated diced celery—Texas, 2010. Clin Infect Dis 56: 20–26.
    [31] Yde M, Naranjo M, Mattheus W, et al. (2012) Usefulness of the European Epidemic Intelligence Information System in the management of an outbreak of listeriosis, Belgium, 2011. Euro Surveill 17: 20279.
    [32] McCollum JT, Cronquist AB, Silk BJ, et al. (2013) Multistate outbreak of listeriosis associated with cantaloupe. New England Journal of Medicine 369: 944–953. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215837
    [33] Nyenje ME, Tanih NF, Green E, et al. (2012) Current status of antibiograms of Listeria ivanovii and Enterobacter cloacae isolated from ready-to-eat foods in Alice, South Africa. Int J Env Res Pub Heal 9: 3101–3114. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9093101
    [34] Park MS, Wang J, Park JH, et al. (2014) Analysis of microbiological contamination in mixed pressed ham and cooked sausage in Korea. J Food Protect 77: 412–418. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-322
    [35] MCID (2014) Macedonian Committee on Infectious Diseases. Available from: http: //www.independent.mk/articles/7492/Dangerous+Bacteria+in+Macedonia+Three+People+Died+of+Listeria.
    [36] Whitworth J (2015) Public Health England reports Listeria rise. Available from: http: //www.foodqualitynews.com/Food-Outbreaks/Listeria-cases-increase-by-5.
    [37] CDC (2015) Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to Commercially Produced, Prepackaged Caramel Apples.
    [38] CDC (2016) Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to Packaged lettuce Salads.
    [39] Bhunia A (2008) Listeria monocytogenes. Foodborne Microbial Pathogens. pp. 165–182.
    [40] Adzitey F, Huda N (2010) Listeria monocytogenes in foods: incidences and possible control measures. Afr J Microbiol Res 4: 2848–2855.
    [41] Lomonaco S, Nucera D, Filipello V (2015) The evolution and epidemiology of Listeriamonocytogenes in Europe and the United States. Infect Genet Evol 35: 172–183. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.08.008
    [42] Bennett L (2000) “Listeria monocytogenes” in Mandell, Douglas, & Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious diseases, Fifth Edition, Chap. 195, pp. 2208-14 In: Mandell, Bennett, and Dolan, 3 Eds.
    [43] CDC (2011) Centre for Disease Control, National Center for emerging and Zoonotic infectious diseases. Available from: http: //www.cdc.gov/ncezid/what-we-do/our-work-our-stories.html
    [44] Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. (1999) Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 5: 607. doi: 10.3201/eid0505.990502
    [45] Ireton K (2006) Listeria monocytogenes. In Bacterial Genomes and Infectious Diseases. 3 Eds., Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 125–149.
    [46] CDC (2014). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: http: //www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html.
    [47] Kemmeren JM, Mangen MJ, van Duynhoven YT, et al. (2006) Priority setting of foodborne pathogens. Disease burden and costs of selected enteric pathogens. Available from: http: //www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/330080001.pdf.
    [48] Ivanek R, Grohn YT, Tauer LW, et al. (2004) The cost and benefit of Listeria monocytogenes food safety measures. Crit Rev Food Sci 44: 513–23.
    [49] Thomas MK, Vriezen R, Farber JM, et al. (2015) Economic Cost of a Listeria monocytogenes Outbreak in Canada, 2008. Foodborne Pathog Dis 12: 966–971. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2015.1965
    [50] USDA/FSIS (2003) Quantitative assessment of relative risk to public health from foodborne Listeria monocytogenes among selected categories of ready-to-eat foods. Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 541. Available from: http: //www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/ RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm183966.htm.
    [51] Maskeroni C (2012) Deli Meat 101: What’s really in your sandwich? http: //www.builtlean.com/2012/04/03/deli-meat/.
    [52] Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, King RK, et al. (2006) Occurrence of pathogens in raw and ready-to-eat meat and poultry products collected from the retail marketplace in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada J Food Prot 69: 2176–2182.
    [53] Yang S, Pei X, Wang G, et al. (2016) Prevalence of food-borne pathogens in ready-to-eat meat products in seven different Chinese regions. Food Control 65: 92–98. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.01.009
    [54] Dominguez C, Gomez I, Zumalacarregui J (2001) Prevalence and contamination levels of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish and pâté sold in Spain. J Food Prot 64: 2075–2077.
    [55] Fantelli K, Stephan R (2001) Prevalence and characteristics of shigatoxin-producing Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from minced meat in Switzerland. Int J Food Microbiol 70: 63–69. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00515-3
    [56] Uyttendaele M, Busschaert P, Valero A, et al. (2009) Prevalence and challenge tests of Listeria monocytogenes in Belgian produced and retailed mayonnaise-based deli-salads, cooked meat products and smoked fish between 2005 and 2007. Intl J Food Microbiol 133: 94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.05.002
    [57] Lambertz ST, Nilsson C, Brådenmark A, et al. (2012) Prevalence and level of Listeriamonocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods in Sweden 2010. Intl J Food Microbiol 160: 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.09.010
    [58] Garrido V, Vitas AI, García-Jalón I (2009) Survey of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat products: prevalence by brands and retail establishments for exposure assessment of listeriosis in Northern Spain. Food Control 20: 986–991.
    [59] Kramarenko T, Roasto M, Meremäe K, et al. (2013) Listeria monocytogenes prevalence and serotype diversity in various foods. Food Control 30: 24–29. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.06.047
    [60] Little CL, Sagoo SK, Gillespie IA, et al. (2009) Prevalence and level of Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria species in selected retail ready-to-eat foods in the United Kingdom. J Food Protect 72: 1869–1877.
    [61] Cabedo L, Picart I, Barrot L, et al. (2008) Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella in ready-to-eat food in Catalonia, Spain. J Food Protect 71: 855–859.
    [62] Di Pinto A, Novello L, Montemurro F, et al. (2010) Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods from supermarkets in Southern Italy. New Microbiologica 33: 249–252.
    [63] Yu T, Jiang X (2014) Prevalence and characterization of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from retail food in Henan, China. Food Control 37: 228–231. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.047
    [64] Mataragas M, Zwietering MH, Skandamis PN, et al. (2010) Quantitative microbiological risk assessment as a tool to obtain useful information for risk managers—specific application to Listeria monocytogenes and ready-to-eat meat products. Intl J Food Microbiol 141: S170–S179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.01.005
    [65] Pradhan AK, Ivanek R, Gröhn YT, et al. (2011) Comparison of public health impact of Listeria monocytogenes product-to-product and environment-to-product contamination of deli meats at retail. J Food Protect 74: 1860–1868. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-351
    [66] Syne SM, Ramsubhag A, Adesiyun AA (2011) Occurrence and genetic relatedness of Listeria spp. in two brands of locally processed ready-to-eat meats in Trinidad. Epidemiol Infect 139: 718–727.
    [67] Cho KM, Kambiranda DM, Kim SW, et al. (2008) Simultaneous Detection of Food-borne Pathogenic Bacteria in Ready-to-eat Kimbab Using Multiplex PCR Method. Food Sci Biotechnol 17: 1240–1245.
    [68] Castañeda-Ruelas GM, Castro-del Campo N, Félix JL, et al. (2013) Prevalence, levels, and relatedness of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from raw and ready-to-eat foods at retail markets in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. J Microbiol Res 3: 92–98.
    [69] Olsen SJ, Patrick M, Hunter SB, et al. (2005) Multistate outbreak of Listeriamonocytogenes infection linked to delicatessen turkey meat. Clin Infect Dis 40: 962–967. doi: 10.1086/428575
    [70] Gibbons IS, Adesiyun A, Seepersadsingh N, et al. (2006) Investigation for possible sources of contamination of ready-to-eat meat products with Listeria spp. and other pathogens in a meat processing plant in Trinidad. Food Microbiol 23: 359–366.
    [71] USDA/FSIS (2010) Comparative risk assessment for Listeria monocytogenes in RTE meat and poultry deli meats. Available from: http: //www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Comparative_ RA_Lm_Report_May2010.pdf
    [72] CDC (2016) Retail Deli Slicer Cleaning Frequency—Six Selected Sites, United States, 2012. MMWR-Morbid Mortal W 65: 306–310. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6512a2
    [73] Chatelard-Chauvin C, Pelissier F, Hulin S, et al. (2015) Behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes in raw milk Cantal type cheeses during cheese making, ripening and storage in different packaging conditions. Food Control 54: 53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.01.007
    [74] Brooks JC, Martinez B, Stratton J, et al. (2012) Survey of raw milk cheeses for microbiological quality and prevalence of foodborne pathogens. Food Microbiology 31: 154–158. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.03.013
    [75] Gebretsadik S, Kassa T, Alemayehu H, et al. (2011) Isolation and characterization of Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria species in foods of animal origin in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Infect Public Heal 4: 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2010.10.002
    [76] Pintado CMBS, Oliveira A, Pampulha ME, et al. (2005) Prevalence and characterization of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from soft cheese. Food Microbiol 22: 79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2004.04.004
    [77] Guerra MM, McLauchlin J, Bernardo FA (2001) Listeria in ready-to-eat and unprocessed foods produced in Portugal. Food Microbiol 18: 423–429. doi: 10.1006/fmic.2001.0421
    [78] Vitas AI, AguadoV, Garcia-Jalon I (2004) Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in fresh and processed foods in Navarra (Spain). Int J Food Microbiol 90: 349–356. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00314-3
    [79] Akpolat NO, Elci S, Atmaca S, et al. (2004) Listeria monocytogenes in products of animal origin in Turkey. Vet Res Commun 28: 561–567. doi: 10.1023/B:VERC.0000042872.07616.18
    [80] Colak H, Hampikyan H, Bingol EB, et al. (2007) Prevalence of L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. in tulum cheese. Food Control 18: 576–579.
    [81] Abrahão WM, Abrahão PRDS, Monteiro CLB, et al. (2008) Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in cheese and ice cream produced in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Farmacêuticas 44: 289–296. doi: 10.1590/S1516-93322008000200014
    [82] Arslan S, Özdemir F (2008) Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Listeria spp. in homemade white cheese. Food Control 19: 360–363.
    [83] Moreno-Enriquez RI, Garcia-Galaz A, Acedo-Felix E, et al. (2007) Prevalence, types, and geographical distribution of Listeria monocytogenes from a survey of retail queso fresco and associated cheese processing plants and dairy farms in Sonora, Mexico. J Food Protect 70: 2596–2601.
    [84] Aygun O, Pehlivanlar S (2006) Listeria spp. in the raw milk and dairy products in Antakya, Turkey. Food Control 17: 676–679.
    [85] Derra FA, Kalsmose S, Monga DP, et al. (2013) Occurrence of Listeria spp. in retail meat and dairy products in the area of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Foodborne Path Dis 10: 577–579.
    [86] Gombas DE, Chen Y, Clavero RS, et al. (2003) Survey of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. J Food Protect 66: 559–569.
    [87] Seeliger HPR, Jones D (1986) Genus Listeria. In: Sneath, P. H. A., N. S. Mair, M. E. Sharpe, J. G. Holt (eds.). Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology Vol. 2. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, USA. p. 1235–1245.
    [88] Bille J, Catimel B, Bannerman E, et al. (1992) API Listeria, a new and promising one-day system to identify Listeria isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 58: 1857–1860
    [89] Valimaa AL, Tilsala-Timisjarvi A, Virtanen E (2015) Rapid detection and identification methods for Listeria monocytogenes in the food chain—A review. Food Control 55: 103–114 doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.02.037
    [90] Huang YT, Ko WC, Chan YJ, et al. (2015) Disease Burden of Invasive Listeriosis and Molecular Characterization of Clinical Isolates in Taiwan, 2000–2013. PLoS ONE 10: p.e0141241.
    [91] Chenal-Francisque V, Lopez J, Cantinelli T, et al. (2011) Worldwide distribution of major clones of Listeria monocytogenes. Emerg Infect Dis 17: 1110–1112.
    [92] EFSA Biohaz Panel (2014)EFSA Panelon Biological Hazards. Scientific opinion on the evaluation of molecular typing methods for major food-borne microbiological hazards and their use for attribution modelling, outbreak investigation and scanning surveillance: part 2 (surveillance and data management activities). EFSA J 12: 3784.
    [93] Pauletto M, Carraro L, Babbucci M, et al. (2016) Extending RAD tag analysis to microbial ecology: a comparison between MultiLocus Sequence Typing and 2b-RAD to investigate Listeria monocytogenes genetic structure. Mol Ecol Resour 16: 823–835.
    [94] Haase JK, Didelot X, Lecuit M, et al. (2014) The ubiquitous nature of Listeria monocytogenes clones: a large-scale Multilocus Sequence Typing study. Environ Microbiol 16: 405–416. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12342
    [95] Nightingale KK, Windham K, Martin KE, et al. (2005) Select Listeria monocytogenes subtypes commonly found in foods carry distinct nonsense mutations in inlA leading to expression of truncated and secreted internalin A and are associated with a reduced invasion phenotype for human intestinal epithelial cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 8764–8772. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8764-8772.2005
    [96] Van Stelten A, Simpson JM, Ward TJ, et al. (2010) Revelation by single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping that mutations leading to a premature stop codon in inlA are common among Listeria monocytogenes isolates from ready-to-eat foods but not human listeriosis cases. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 2783–2790. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02651-09
    [97] Ward TJ, Evans P, Wiedmann M, et al. (2010) Molecular and phenotypic characterization of Listeria monocytogenes from US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service surveillance of ready-to-eat foods and processing facilities. J Food Protect 73: 861–869.
    [98] Lecuit M, Ohayon H, Braun L, et al. (1997) Internalin of Listeria monocytogenes with an intact leucine-rich repeat region is sufficient to promote internalization. Infect Immun 65: 5309–5319.
    [99] Loman NJ, Constantinidou C, Chan JZ, et al. (2012) High-throughput bacterial genome sequencing: an embarrassment of choice, a world of opportunity. Nat Rev Microbiol 10: 599–606.
    [100] CDC (2015) Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: http: //www.cdc.gov/Listeria/pdf/whole-genome-sequencing-and-Listeria-508c.pdf.
    [101] FDA/FSIS (2003) Available from: ftp: //ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/y5394e/y5394e.pdf.
    [102] Giaouris E, Heir E, Desvaux M, et al. (2015) Intra-and inter-species interactions within biofilms of important foodborne bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol 6: 841.
    [103] Dzeciol M, Schornsteiner E, Muhterem-Uyar M, et al. (2016) Bacterial diversity of floor drain biofilms and drain waters in a Listeria monocytogenes contaminated food processing environment. Intl J Food Microbiol 223: 33–40 doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.02.004
    [104] Sasahara K C, Zottola EA (1993) Biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes utilizes a primary colonizing microorganism in flowing system. J. Food Prot 56: 1022–1028.
    [105] Buchanan RL, Bagi LK (1999) Microbial competition: effect of Psueodomonas fluorescens on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Microbiol 16: 523–529. doi: 10.1006/fmic.1998.0264
    [106] Bremer P J, Monk I, Osborne CM (2001) Survival of Listeria monocytogenes attached to stainless steel surfaces in the presence or absence of Flavobacterium spp. J Food Prot 64, 1369–1376.
    [107] Leriche V, Carpentier B (2000) Limitation of adhesion and growth of Listeria monocytogenes on stainless steel surfaces by Staphylococcus sciuri biofilms. J Appl Microbiol 88: 594–605.
    [108] Norwood DE, Gilmour A (2001) The differential adherence capabilities of two Listeria monocytogenes strains in monoculture and multispecies biofilms as a function of temperature. Lett Appl Microbiol 33: 320–324. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765X.2001.01004.x
    [109] Wang JI, Ray AJ, Hammons SR, et al. (2015) Persistent and transient Listeria monocytogenes strains from retail deli environments vary in their ability to adhere and form biofilms and rarely have inlA premature stop codons. Foodborne Pathog Dis 12: 151–158. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2014.1837
    [110] FST (2016) Food Safety Tech eNewsletter. Innovative Publishing Company, USA. Available from: www.foodsafetytech.com.
    [111] Chmielewski R, Frank JF (2003) Biofilm formation and control in food processing facilities. Comp Rev Food Sci 2: 22–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00012.x
    [112] USDA/FSIS (2014) Compliance Guideline: Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to -Eat Meat and Poultry Products. Available from: http: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d3373299-50e6-47d6a577e74a1e549fde/Controlling-Lm-RTE-Guideline.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
    [113] Paparella A, Serio A, Chaves-López C, et al. (2013) Plant-based intervention strategies for Listeria monocytogenes control in foods. Microbial pathogens and strategies for combating them: Science, technology and education, 2, pp.1230–1246.
    [114] Koutchma T (2008) UV light for processing foods. Ozone: Science and Engineering 30: 93–98. doi: 10.1080/01919510701816346
    [115] Ganan M, Hierro E, Hospital XF, et al. (2013) Use of pulsed light to increase the safety of ready-to-eat cured meat products. Food Control 32: 512–517. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.01.022
    [116] Huq T, Vu KD, Riedl B, et al. (2015) Synergistic effect of gamma (γ)-irradiation and microencapsulated antimicrobials against Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat (RTE) meat. Food Microbiol 46: 507–514. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.09.013
    [117] Kudra LL, Sebranek JG, Dickson JS, et al. (2012) Control of Listeria monocytogenes on Frankfurters and Cooked Pork Chops by Irradiation Combined with Modified Atmosphere Packaging. J Food Protect 75: 1063–1070. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-528
    [118] Jin T, Liu L, Sommers CH, et al. (2009) Radiation sensitization and postirradiation proliferation of Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat deli meat in the presence of pectin-nisin films. J Food Protect 72: 644–649.
    [119] Rajkovic A, Tomasevic I, Smigic N, et al. (2010) Pulsed UV light as an intervention strategy against Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157: H7 on the surface of a meat slicing knife. J Food Eng 100: 446–451. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.04.029
    [120] Myers K, Cannon J, Montoya D, et al. (2013) Effects of high hydrostatic pressure and varying concentrations of sodium nitrite from traditional and vegetable-based sources on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat (RTE) sliced ham. Meat Sci 94: 69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.12.019
    [121] Tomasula PM, Renye JA, Van Hekken DL, et al. (2014) Effect of high-pressure processing on reduction of Listeria monocytogenes in packaged Queso Fresco. J Dairy Sci 97: 1281–1295. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7538
    [122] Malley TJ, Butts J, Wiedmann M (2015) Seek and destroy process: Listeria monocytogenes process controls in the ready-to-eat meat and poultry industry. J Food Protect 78: 436–445. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-507
    [123] FDA (2008) Guidance for Industry: Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Refrigerated or Frozen Ready-To-Eat Foods; Draft Guidance. US Food and Drug Administration. Available from: www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ FoodProcessingHACCP/ucm073110.htm.
    [124] Fabrizio KA, Cutter CN (2005) Application of electrolyzed oxidizing water to reduce Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat meats. Meat Sci 71: 327–333. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.04.012
    [125] Saini JK, Barrios MA, Marsden JL, et al. (2013) Efficacy of antimicrobial lauric arginate against Listeria monocytogenes on stainless steel coupons. Adv Microbiol 3: 29119.
    [126] Burt S (2014) Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods – a review. Intl J Food Microbiol 94: 223–253.
    [127] Lv F, Liang H, Yuan Q, et al. (2011) In vitro antimicrobial effects and mechanism of action of selected plant essential oil combinations against four food-related microorganisms. Food Res Int 44: 3057–3064. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.07.030
    [128] Dhayakaran R, Neethirajan S, Weng X, et al. (2016) Investigation of the antimicrobial activity of soy peptides by developing a high throughput drug screening assay. Biochem Biophys Rep 6: 149–157.
    [129] Lui W, Hansen N (1990) Some chemical and physical properties of nisin, a small-protein antibiotic produced by Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol 56: 2551–2558.
    [130] Zhou H, Fang J, Tian Y, et al. (2014) Mechanisms of nisin resistance in Gram-positive bacteria. Ann Microbiol 64: 413–420. doi: 10.1007/s13213-013-0679-9
    [131] Chen X, Zhang X, Meng R, et al. (2016) Efficacy of a combination of nisin and p-Anisaldehyde against Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 66: 100–106. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.01.025
    [132] Campos CA, Castro MP, Gliemmo MF, et al. (2011). Use of natural antimicrobials for the control of Listeria monocytogenes in foods. Science against microbial pathogens: Communicating current research and technological advances. Formatex, Badajoz, pp.1112–1123.
    [133] Murphy RY, Hanson RE, Johnson NR, et al. (2006) Combining organic acid treatment with steam pasteurization to eliminate Listeria monocytogenes on fully cooked frankfurters. J Food Protect 69: 47–52.
    [134] Trinetta V, Floros JD, Cutter CN (2010) Sakacin A- containing pullulan film: an active packaging system to control epidemic clones of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. J Food Safety 30: 366–381. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4565.2010.00213.x
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(9115) PDF downloads(1719) Cited by(18)

Figures and Tables

Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog