Hollen/Sharp must have been quite busy this last year. There is a lot of solid science being done in that lab and the results are very encouraging. MMTC is on a good path now with real clinical samples, hospital collaboration, and the current team. Automation in the future would really advance their goal of commercialization. MMTC is real and it still rocks. Nice

I understand your sentiment, but an objective viewpoint would note that your predictions have been very accurate regarding the progress of MMTC, and the negative predictions have consistently missed the mark. Kudos for you and MMTC.

SGR, Your predictions have been very accurate and precise over the past year. Good job. They make the bashers repeated predictions of doom and gloom look so foolish. MMTC has been making steady significant progress in the clinical realm and results are obvious. MMTC will have a real position in the rapid microbial identification market because the science behind this is rock solid. As Dr. Sharp has most recently demonstrated with his study showing 100% accuracy rapidly identifying multiple staph species, the MIT1000 works beautifully. I believe this is just the start of it's applications. So the patient longs should be well rewarded.

The pharmaceutical industry requires an average of fourteen years of patent life to bring one drug to market. This should provide some perspective.

Agreed Kalstone, MMTC is in the envious position of holding the only patent for single organism laser identification; and they can do it faster and cheaper than the competition. The immunomagnetic bead separation has put MMTC into an entirely different category now. There is a reason they are collaborating. Haavig "has"what Bhunia "needs". So in a nutshell, yes MMTC rocks.

I agree that Dr. Bhunia is one of the top experts in the field of food safety. So It is very telling that he chose Dr. Haavig to collaborate with in the lab and deliver a speech at the 2015 IAFP. His email segment is somewhat confusing however. He refers to "picked colonies". Is he referring to the MMTC protocol ? They haven't used this technique since July 2014. The current protocol used by MMTC bypasses any colony growth by using immunomagnetic separation and enrichment to reduce the total identification time to 3-6 hours. The Bardot protocol still requires colony growth in order to identify each species and therefore they are limited by the time required to grow each colony forming unit (CFU) which can take up to 24 hours or even longer in the case of listeria monocytogenes. Don't forget that Dr. Haavig received his patent for single cell identification two years before Purdue could patent the Bardot, which was patented for colony identification. This is an inherent limitation of the Bardot system because it will always be dependent on the time limitation of colony growth. What Dr. Bhunia seems to be explaining in his email is the advantage of automated colony selection of the Bardot system as compared to others, he doesn't mention that MMTC has bypassed this entire step altogether and now has reduced the total identification time significantly. To my knowledge the Bardot has not reduced the total time for identification nor will they since they are still required to grow entire colonies. Until 2014 the MIT 1000 and Bardot were very similar; one used entire colonies to identify bacterial species and the other used single organisms. But now the MIT 1000 can utilize immunomagnetic separation to capture single bacteria from a liquid medium and still test it at the single cell level for more rapid identification. The Bardot simply cannot. Immunomagnetic separation always results in single cells, not colonies and therefore can not be used independently with the Bardot technique. My question is why would Dr. Bhunia collaborate so closely with Dr. Haavig both in the laboratory and and at the lectern if he didn't see any value in the work of the MIT 1000? Dr. Bhunia's words may stem from a healthy scientific competition, but his actions certainly say otherwise.

Thanks BSW

This is a very significant development for MMTC. Culture time was always the rate limiting step for the MIT 1000's rapid identification and it has apparently been eliminated now. Very good news.

Anytime BSW,
Still here long and strong. I'm glad to see that the MIT1000 and the Bardot are pairing up for some research in an academic setting. They are very similar in the technology, the MIT1000 identifies single organisms and the Bardot uses the same forward scatter to identify colonies of bacteria, which is more complex and takes longer. That is a drawback of the Bardot . Luckily Dr. Haavig patented the process of identifying single organisms years before his alma mater Purdue developed their machine. What's interesting is that the Purdue dept. of food safety seems to be working on an algorithm for a non-exhaustive library using supervised learning of identification. Meaning that the machine learns as it goes to identify different sub-types of a particular bacterium. I haven't seen any material use of this yet though.I'm curious to see if Dr. Haavig will be involved in this since identifier algorithms are his forte as evidenced by previous work. We will have to wait and see.

HKipp1 is right. I also attended the July 2012 IAFP meeting in Providence RI and met with the team and saw the device. I reported this in my posts #63822 and # 63949. Still long and strong here because this machine works, beautifully. Still waiting for anybody to prove to me that MIT1000 doesn't perform exactly the way the AOAC and USDA says it does.

I'm still all in. The MIT 1000 has the science to back it up and it will not fail. NAMSA already reported 100% accuracy in identifying E. Coli and Salmonella in 2006 by this machine. The AOAC certs are inevitable, its not a matter of if, but simply when and I am completely confident about this. I also happen to be patient which is a necessary virtue with science. In fact, to this day not one person has been able to prove that the MIT 1000 doesn't perform exactly the way the AOAC, USDA, and NAMSA all say it does. I'm still waiting. Long and strong.

That's right BSW, this technology is directly from the man who invented it. The machine works, beautifully. There should be no concern whether the MIT1000 can perform because AOAC, USDA, and NAMSA all confirm that it does.

That's your opinion, See the difference?

My statement is fact, not merely opinion. See the difference?

Remember that this technology has been verified by AOAC, USDA, and NAMSA.

Exactly, the USDA reports 100% accuracy in identifying all six Listeria species except the non-human pathogen L. Seeligeri.The USDA has never reported that the MIT1000 is marginal. Never, not once, ever. Period. L. Seeligeri is not a major human pathogen, there has been only one reported illness ever with L. seeligeri and this was in an immunocompromised patient. Nor is Aeromonas a major food pathogen, as pointed out by HKipp1 who has previously published a paper describing the organism. Anyone can read the report for themselves and then decide who is factual. I trust the USDA data and certainly not the incorrect biased conclusions of some others.
From the USDA report:

Methods that can rapidly confirm the identification of foodborne pathogens are highly desired. The USDA has recently entered into a collaborative research agreement with Micro Imaging Technology to evaluate their MIT 1000 microbial identification system for its ability to identify Listeria species including the human pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes. The MIT 1000 is a benchtop instrument that detects laser light (660 nm, 30 mW, 100 'm diameter) scattered from individual bacterial cells, in aqueous suspension, with an array of 35 individually addressed photodiode detectors. Identification is based upon pattern recognition by the automated algorithm-based comparison of averaged scattered light signal and bacteria scatter pattern libraries. Identification times are less than 10 min (often ca. 5 min) and operating costs are extremely low since the detection procedure requires no reagents (e.g., external labels or tags) other than filtered water. Cursory investigations at a USDA research lab have demonstrated the MIT 1000 to have an accuracy of 100% (n=10-30 per species) for the identification of all Listeria spp. with the exception of L. seeligeri. L. seeligeri was only identified with an accuracy of 10% and the reason for this anomaly is currently unknown. Initial attempts at false positive testing have resulted in 0% of incidence for Citrobacter freundii, Brocothrix thermospacta II, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, Escherichia coli K12, and multiple strains of E. coli O157:H7. However, a 50% false positive rate was observed for Aeromonas hydrophila when tested against the Listeria spp. library. With further development, the MIT 1000 appears to hold promise for use by food producers and regulatory agencies in the microbial testing of foods.

I'm with you HKipp1-
Amid all the back and forth one fact always remains: the machine works, beautifully. Certs will happen, it's not a matter of "if" but simply when. Until then we wait.

Can you please supply an exact quote from the USDA saying that any part of MIT1000 is "marginal". Please back up your claim. Otherwise it's just your opinion and not the USDA's. See how that works?

The AOAC is a well respected third party scientific agency. Are you impugning their reputation? Also please provide the exact quote from the USDA saying that there is anything at all marginal about the MIT1000. I'm waiting.

Why would they be embarrassed, the AOAC certified the MIT1000.

This is what the USDA thinks about the MIT1000:
From the Journal of AOAC International Vol 93, No1,2010

Conclusions:

"The PTM test score of 99% indicates that the MIT1000 RMID
system can accurately identify Listeria and distinguish it
from other bacteria. We recommend that this method be approved by the AOAC RI".

Good points all, and one bears repeating: you can't fake AOAC approval. The AOAC has approved the MIT1000 for Listeria. No amount of false logic, faulty conclusions, or unprovable opinion can change that. Period. Have a good weekend GeneralLee.

Indeed they have. This is a fact that cannot be denied.

You don't have to take my word for it, NAMSA, AOAC, and USDA have all verified the performance of the MIT1000.

No, MMTC is a company that was first ever to patent laser based optical forward scatter for the rapid identification of microbial pathogens for food safety. It is partnered with a world class manufacturer- OSIO Optoelectronics.

It's identical to the badge inside the MIT1000 unit I saw at the IAFP.Nice work RM.

Outstanding HKipp1 !!

It is not wrong, your conclusions regarding the data are faulty.

In fact, Dr. Haavig patented his design of the histogram probability algorithm (software) in 2003 along with a mathematics professor from the California Institute of Technology, Dr.Gary Lorden. US patent 66396721B2. This also provides proof that there was University involvement with the MIT1000.

From the technical white paper Patents US 6421121B1 and US 6639672B2:

"David Haavig (PhD. Physics), Chief Technology Officer of Micro Identification Technologies, and Gary Lorden (PhD. Mathematics), professor of mathematics, Cali- fornia Institute of Technology, developed and patented the technology."

Dr. Haavig is not a microbiologist, he is a physicist with 30 years of experience in instrument design as well as computer software and applications for optical measurement and analysis. He seems particularly qualified to design, maintain, and upgrade the software for the MIT1000.

From his bio:

David L. Haavig, PhD
Vice President and Chief Scientist
David Haavig, PhD, Vice President and Chief Scientist, joined MIT in May 1998 as director of research and development. Dr. Haavig has over 30 years experience in instrument design and computer software with applications in optical measurements and analysis. Dr. Haavig, prior to joining MIT, was Technical Director and Principal Investigator on numerous government programs at McDonnell Douglas and San Diego-based Science Applications International Corporation. Dr. Haavig received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the University of Seattle and his Master of Science and PhD in Physics from Purdue University.

Thanks

Just for the record, I'm STILL waiting for anyone to prove to me that the MIT1000 doesn't work EXACTLY as the USDA, AOAC, and NAMSA says it does. I'm waiting.

That's incorrect. Read the report. The USDA reports 99% accuracy in the identification of Listeria by the MIT1000.

That's incorrect. The USDA and NAMSA both have reviewed the performance of the MIT1000.

I have Cadillac107- and that's why I am long on MMTC.

That is incorrect. The USDA said "with further development the MIT appears to hold promise for use by food producers and regulatory agencies in the microbial testing of foods".

That is incorrect. NAMSA and USDA both reviewed the MIT1000 and their results have been published. That is what is called "peer review".

Here is another nice fact from a previous post.

MMTC- facts recap:

1999 direct technology transfer from Wyatt Technology, the inventor of laser based optical forward scatter, to MMTC for the MIT1000

2002 Dr. Haavig is the first ever to patent optical forward scatter for the detection of single microbial organisms with the MIT1000.

2006 NAMSA reported 98% accuracy of the MIT1000 in identifying multiple food borne pathogens.

2010 AOAC/USDA certifies the MIT1000 for Listeria with a 99% accuracy.

2012 Certifications for E. Coli and Salmonella currently pending.

Listeria, E.Coli, and Salmonella make up 95% of food borne pathogens in a 5 billion dollar a year testing market.

I concur, these are the same responses I got from Mr. Nunez when I spoke to him at the IAFP in Providence this summer.