Comparative characteristics and roles of analytical methods within the integrated framework.
| Aspect | Conventional microbiology | Molecular methods (PCR/WGS) | Foodomics approaches |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detection target | Viable culturable pathogens | Specific genes, genomes, virulence markers | Microbial communities, metabolites, proteomes |
| Discriminatory resolution | Low-moderate (serotyping, biochemical) | High (SNP-level via WGS) | Very high (system-level, culture-independent) |
| Turnaround time | 2–5 days (culture) to weeks | Hours (qPCR) to 1–3 days (WGS) | Variable: days (metabolomics) to weeks (metagenomics) |
| Key strengths | Gold standard for viability; essential for AMR testing; regulatory acceptance | High sensitivity/specificity; strain-level tracing; real-time surveillance integration | Culture-independent; holistic ecosystem view; characterizes pathogen-food matrix interactions |
| Key limitations | Cannot detect VBNC cells; limited strain discrimination; slow | Requires reference genome databases; cannot confirm viability | Bioinformatic complexity; high cost; limited regulatory standardization |
| Regulatory status | ISO/AOAC standardized; fully accepted | Increasingly accepted; WGS mandated in EU/US for select pathogens | Research-grade; regulatory integration emerging |
| Role in framework | Foundation: confirmation, AMR profiling, isolate preservation | Core: source attribution, phylogenomics, strain linkage | Extended: risk contextualization, contamination ecology, hypothesis generation |
AMR: antimicrobial resistance; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; qPCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; VBNC: viable but non-culturable; WGS: whole-genome sequencing.