Journal: American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine PDF
Published: 9-Nov-15 Volume: 3 Issue: 5 Pages: 260-267
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20150305.21 ISSN: 2330-8125 (Print) 2330-8133 (Online)
Authors: Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Sambhu Charan Mondal, Snehasis Jana
Citation: Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Sambhu Charan Mondal, Snehasis Jana. Biochemical Differentiation and Molecular Characterization of Biofield Treated Vibrio parahaemolyticus. American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. Vol. 3, No. 5, 2015, pp. 260-267. doi: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20150305.21
- 3292 Views
- 1399 Downloads
The recent emergence of the Vibrio parahaemolyticus (V. parahaemolyticus) is a pandemic. For the safety concern of seafood, consumer monitoring of this organism in seafood is very much essential. The current study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on [ATCC-17802] strain of V. parahaemolyticus for its biochemical characteristics, biotype and 16S rDNA analysis. The lyophilized strain of V. parahaemolyticus was divided into two parts, Group (Gr.) I: control and Gr. II: treated. Gr. II was further subdivided into two parts, Gr. IIA and Gr. IIB. Gr. IIA was analyzed on day 10, whereas, Gr. IIB was stored and analyzed on day 142 (Study I). After retreatment of Gr. IIB on day 142 (Study II), the sample was divided into three separate tubes. The tubes first, second and third were analyzed on day 5, 10, and 15, respectively. The biochemical reaction and biotyping were performed using automated MicroScan Walk-Away® system. The 16S rDNA sequencing was carried out to correlate the phylogenetic relationship of V. parahaemolyticus with other bacterial species after the treatment. The results of biochemical reactions were altered 24.24%, out of thirty-three in the treated groups with respect to the control. Moreover, negative (-) reaction of urea was changed to positive (+) in the revived treated Gr. IIB, Study II on day 15 as compared to the control. Besides, biotype number was substantially changed in all the treated groups as compared to the control. However, change in organisms were reported in Gr. IIA on day 10 and in Gr. IIB; Study II on day 5 as Shewanella putrefaciens and Moraxella/Psychrobacter spp., respectively with respect to the control i.e. Vibrio sp. SF. 16S rDNA analysis showed that the identified sample in this experiment was V. parahaemolyticus after biofield treatment, and the nearest homolog genus-species was observed as Vibrio natriegens with 98% gene identity. The results envisaged that the biofield energy treatment showed an alteration in biochemical reaction pattern and biotype number on the strain of V. parahaemolyticus.
Based on study outcome, the biofield energy treated V. parahaemolyticus showed 24.24% alteration in biochemical reaction pattern with respect to the control. Moreover, the biotype number of V. parahaemolyticus was changed in all the treated groups analyzed at different time-points as compared with the control. Apart from biotype number, the new organisms were observed as Shewanella putrefaciens and Moraxella/Psychrobacter spp., in the treated Gr. IIA, on day 10 and in Gr. IIB; Study II, on day 5, respectively as compared to the control i.e. Vibrio sp. SF. Molecular technique based on 16S rDNA analysis showed that the treated sample in this experiment was detected as V. parahaemolyticus. While, the nearest homolog genus-species was reported as Vibrio natriegens with 98% similarity. Based on these results, it seems that Mr. Trivedi’s unique biofield treatment could be utilized as an alternate therapeutic window concurrent with other existing drug therapy in the field of seafood industry in the near future.