Evaluation of different micro/nanobeads used as amplifiers in QCM immunosensor for more sensitive detection of E. coli O157:H7

Jiang, Xuesong; Wang, Ronghui; Wang, Yun; Su, Xiaoli; Ying, Yibin; Wang, Jianping; Li, Yanbin

doi:10.1016/j.bios.2011.07.059

Cited by 97 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…QCM sensors have been developed for the detection of whole bacterial cells, including Escherichia coli (56,57), Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (58), Campylobacter jejuni (59) and Bacillus anthracis (60). The development of sandwich-type assays which employ nanoparticles for signal amplification has allowed for the detection of very few bacterial cells, down to 10 CFU/ml in some cases (58).…”

Section: Mechanical Biosensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosensors for Whole-Cell Bacterial Detection

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Bacterial pathogens are important targets for detection and identification in medicine, food safety, public health, and security. Bacterial infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In spite of the availability of antibiotics, these infections are often misdiagnosed or there is an unacceptable delay in diagnosis. Current methods of bacterial detection rely upon laboratory-based techniques such as cell culture, microscopic analysis, and biochemical assays. These procedures are time-consuming and costly and require specialist equipment and trained users. Portable stand-alone biosensors can facilitate rapid detection and diagnosis at the point of care. Biosensors will be particularly useful where a clear diagnosis informs treatment, in critical illness (e.g., meningitis) or to prevent further disease spread (e.g., in case of food-borne pathogens or sexually transmitted diseases). Detection of bacteria is also becoming increasingly important in antibioterrorism measures (e.g., anthrax detection). In this review, we discuss recent progress in the use of biosensors for the detection of whole bacterial cells for sensitive and earlier identification of bacteria without the need for sample processing. There is a particular focus on electrochemical biosensors, especially impedance-based systems, as these present key advantages in terms of ease of miniaturization, lack of reagents, sensitivity, and low cost.

show abstract

Section: Mechanical Biosensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosensors for Whole-Cell Bacterial Detection

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yersinia enterocolitica Most of the modern sensors are designed to determine the causative agents of a widespread group of intestinal diseases -bacteria E. coli (Plomer et al 1992, Su and Li 2002, Adanyi et al 2006, Shen et al 2011, Jiang et al 2011, Listeria monocytogenes (Minunni et al 1996, Vaughan et al 2002, Salmonella sp. , Su et al 2005, Yang et al 2009, Park and Kim 1998, Wong et al 2002, Fung and Wong 2001, Ying-Sing et al 2000, Vibrio cholera (Carter et al 1995), Yersinia enterocolitica , viruses (Konig and Gratzel 1992).…”

Section: Aizawa Et Al 2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The detection limit of bacteria E. coli 0157: H7 is 10 3 CFU·ml -1 . In order to increase the sensitivity of the determination of E. coli O157: H7 streptavidin-conjugated nanoparticles gold (145 nm), magnetic, silica and polymer nanoparticles of 30 -970 nm, immunomagnetic nanoparticles (BIMPs) and affinity-purified antibodies against E.coli treated with biotin , Shen et al 2011, Jiang et al 2011) are used. After binding cells with immobilized antibodies nanoparticles of bio-conjugates with streptavidin are injected into the system ), thus amplifying the sensor's signal, with the detection limit of bacteria E. coli O157: H7 decreasing to 10 2 CFU·ml -1 .…”

Section: Analytementioning

confidence: 99%

Capabilities of Piezoelectric Immunosensors for Detecting Infections and for Early Clinical Diagnostics

Ermolaeva¹,

Kalmykova²

2012

Advances in Immunoassay Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The possibility of concentrating target cells prior to detection can eliminate the need for time-consuming pre-enrichment steps with a greater real time analytical sensitivity. In comparison with centrifugation, filtration, or capture of target on an immuno-functionalized surface, the IMS is simpler, and generally results in higher capture efficiency due to the greater surface area available for target binding [2] [14]. This is especially true of nano-sized particles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is especially true of nano-sized particles. The surface chemistry of nano-sized particles such as surface tension, magnetization and sheer volume of surface area improves the amount of functionalized space for reaction to occur and thus improves the capture ability and longevity of the resultant IMS particles [2] [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture Age on Evaluation of Electrically Active Magnetic Nanoparticles as Accurate and Efficient Microbial Extraction Tools

Cloutier¹,

Cloutier²,

Trinidad³

et al. 2014

OJAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A potential confounding factor in the development and evaluation of biosensors is the diverse nature of the disciplines involved. Biosensor technology involves electrochemistry, microbiology, chemical synthesis, and engineering, among many other disciplines. Biological systems, due to non-homogeneous distribution, are already imprecise compared with other systems, especially food based systems. Inadequate knowledge of the techniques to moderate this leads to ineffective evaluation strategies and potentially halting the pursuit of excellent technology that was merely poorly evaluated. This research was undertaken to evaluate the effect culture age had on the capture efficiency of the electrically active magnetic nanoparticles (EAMNP) using culture as the evaluation tool. The age of culture used for immunomagnetic separation (IMS) over all the experiments was 6 to 18 hours. Ideal culture age range for evaluating biosensors is 4 to 10 hours according to the growth curve for E. coli O157: H7 in trypticase soy broth. This is supported by the statistically significant difference among organisms in groups from 3 to 10 hours old compared with those grouped from 11 to 18 and >19 hours old (α = 0.05, p = 0.001 and p = 0.014 respectively). The two older categories were not different from each other. The capture efficiency in all biosensor analysis will vary less than when culture of only viable cells is the diagnostic tool. This allows a true evaluation of the consistency and accuracy of the method, less hindered by the variation in the ability to culture the organism.

show abstract

Evaluation of different micro/nanobeads used as amplifiers in QCM immunosensor for more sensitive detection of E. coli O157:H7

Cited by 97 publications

References 34 publications

Biosensors for Whole-Cell Bacterial Detection

Biosensors for Whole-Cell Bacterial Detection

Capabilities of Piezoelectric Immunosensors for Detecting Infections and for Early Clinical Diagnostics

Culture Age on Evaluation of Electrically Active Magnetic Nanoparticles as Accurate and Efficient Microbial Extraction Tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About