2016
DOI: 10.2116/analsci.32.215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Establishment and Application of a Visual DNA Microarray for the Detection of Food-borne Pathogens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Main immunological detection includes ELISA and colloidal gold immunochromatographic test methods, the former detection limit is about 10 3 –10 6 CFU/ml, the detection time is 3–4 hr (Brandao, Liebana, & Pividori, 2015; Di Febo et al, 2019), the latter detection limit is 10 5 CFU/ml, the detection time is about 15 min (Duan et al, 2017); however, Salmonella pathogen often contaminates food only at low levels, which often resulted in negative results. Molecular biology methods have lower detection limits, especially PCR, the detection limit can be up to 10 2 CFU/ml (Alves, Hirooka, & de Oliveira, 2016; Y. J. Li, 2016), the detection time is 5 hr or so, but using the traditional PCR to detect microorganisms often needs extracting DNA, amplification and electrophoresis, and so on, and the operation are relatively complicated. Recently, digital PCR and real‐time PCR have been widely applied for Salmonella or other pathogens assay, they have rapid, quantitative, and low detection limit advantages, but expensive instrument disadvantage is also obvious (M. Wang et al, 2018; Zhou et al, 2017).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Main immunological detection includes ELISA and colloidal gold immunochromatographic test methods, the former detection limit is about 10 3 –10 6 CFU/ml, the detection time is 3–4 hr (Brandao, Liebana, & Pividori, 2015; Di Febo et al, 2019), the latter detection limit is 10 5 CFU/ml, the detection time is about 15 min (Duan et al, 2017); however, Salmonella pathogen often contaminates food only at low levels, which often resulted in negative results. Molecular biology methods have lower detection limits, especially PCR, the detection limit can be up to 10 2 CFU/ml (Alves, Hirooka, & de Oliveira, 2016; Y. J. Li, 2016), the detection time is 5 hr or so, but using the traditional PCR to detect microorganisms often needs extracting DNA, amplification and electrophoresis, and so on, and the operation are relatively complicated. Recently, digital PCR and real‐time PCR have been widely applied for Salmonella or other pathogens assay, they have rapid, quantitative, and low detection limit advantages, but expensive instrument disadvantage is also obvious (M. Wang et al, 2018; Zhou et al, 2017).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These techniques can detect multiple strains/species of pathogens at one time. Implementations such as microarrays (Li, 2016), multiplex PCR (Rodríguez et al, 2015), and genome scale metabolic technique (Metz, Ding, & Baumler, 2018) have been developed. However, these techniques require sophisticated analytical equipment and are not well suited for routine or field detection.…”
Section: Comparison Of Test Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of methods are time consuming, laborious, and less specific (Abubakar et al, 2007;Kim et al, 2006;Jarvik et al, 2010). To overcome these limitations, various molecular and genetic-based approaches such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Park et al, 2009;de Freitas et al, 2010;Liu et al,2012;He et al, 2016), sequence-based serotyping, and DNA microarray hybridization (Guard et al,2012;Li, 2016) methods have been developed. Recently, specific PCR based-markers have gained importance in pathogen detection due to fast detection and high accuracy in comparison to the conventional methods (Kim et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%