Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method for rapid identification and differentiation ofBurkholderia pseudomalleiandBurkholderia malleifrom each other,Burkholderia thailandensisand several members of theBurkholderia cepaciacomplex

Li, D; March, Jordon K.; Bills, Teri M; Holt, Brian C; Wilson, C E; Lowe, W.E.; Tolley, H. Dennis; Lee, M L; Robison, Richard A.

doi:10.1111/jam.12310

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our earlier gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) analysis of B. pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis was unsuitable for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis (1). Recent gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) analysis of bacterial fatty acid content corroborated our GLC results (2) but did not analyze VOC production. Combination of solid-phase microextraction capture (SPME) with GCMS presented an opportunity to analyze the volatile products of Burkholderia metabolism, identify the distinctive VOCs generated by B. pseudomallei, and determine whether the principal components of its odor could be used to aid in its identification.…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

Volatile-Sulfur-Compound Profile Distinguishes Burkholderia pseudomallei from Burkholderia thailandensis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

c Solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME-GCMS) was used to show that dimethyl sulfide produced by Burkholderia pseudomallei is responsible for its unusual truffle-like smell and distinguishes the species from Burkholderia thailandensis. SPME-GCMS can be safely used to detect dimethyl sulfide produced by agar-grown B. pseudomallei.T he earthy, truffle-like smell of mature Burkholderia pseudomallei colonies on solid agar media has been used to aid identification in the clinical laboratory. Previous attempts to analyze the volatile metabolic products of B. pseudomallei have been hampered by the low sensitivity of separation technologies and concerns about laboratory-acquired infection risks. Our earlier gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) analysis of B. pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis was unsuitable for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis (1). Recent gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) analysis of bacterial fatty acid content corroborated our GLC results (2) but did not analyze VOC production. Combination of solid-phase microextraction capture (SPME) with GCMS presented an opportunity to analyze the volatile products of Burkholderia metabolism, identify the distinctive VOCs generated by B. pseudomallei, and determine whether the principal components of its odor could be used to aid in its identification.Bacterial strains. Burkholderia species that had been identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) MS and species-specific PCR assay (3, 4) were used, including five fully sequenced strains (5) Bacterial strains were cultured in air at 37°C for 24 h on 5% horse blood agar, and their identities were verified by MALDI-TOF MS analysis (3). A bacteriological loop was used to touch 10 distinct colonies of each strain and inoculate a fresh 5% horse blood agar plate to guarantee single-colony growth after 24 h of incubation in air at 37°C. These plates were used for SPME-GCMS analysis at 48 h after inoculation. A more detailed 1-week time series compared B. pseudomallei NCTC 13171 and B. thailandensis Bt4 inoculated at 24-h intervals onto blood agar plates from a single manufacturer's batch (Excel Laboratory Products, Nedlands, WA, Australia). Each plate was incubated in its own labeled zip lock polyethylene bag on the same incubator shelf as the others in the series. SPME-GCMS glass vials were coded to conceal the durations of incubation and identities of the bacteria. We analyzed three discrete bacterial colonies per glass vial by excising 0.80-mm-diameter plugs from 5% horse blood agar plates and transferring them to a sterile glass vial sealed with a diaphragm-protected screw top. The microextraction sheath was inserted into the vial's headspace, and automatic sampling was conducted for 10 min after sheath insertion. To determine the sensitivity and specificity of volatile organic sulfur compound detection as a means of distinguishing B. pseudomallei from near-neighbor Burkholderia species and morecommon laboratory Gram-negati...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 67%

Volatile-Sulfur-Compound Profile Distinguishes Burkholderia pseudomallei from Burkholderia thailandensis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one representative example, GC-MS was used for the detection and differentiation of two very similar pathogens, B. mallei and pseudomallei , with an LOD down to 4000 cells . LCMS-MS has also been used in the detection of C. burnetii , and species-specific detection of B. anthracis spores along with Y. pestis . , In the latter approach, an initial immunocapture step was performed to enrich the sample of intact Y. pestis cells; see Figure .…”

Section: Physical Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gas chromatography (GC), liquid chromatography (LC), and affinity chromatography are the most prominent methods by which to fractionate and concentration samples before detection by MS. 166,189 In one representative example, GC-MS was used for the detection and differentiation of two very similar pathogens, B. mallei and pseudomallei, with an LOD down to 4000 cells. 190 LCMS-MS has also been used in the detection of C. burnetii, 191 and species-specific detection of B. anthracis spores along with Y. pestis. 192,193 In the latter approach, an initial immunocapture step was performed to enrich the sample of intact Y. pestis cells; see Figure 10.…”

Section: Acs Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Biothreat Agents: From Current Diagnostics to Developing Sensor Technologies

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a fundamental understanding of the pathogenicity of most biothreat agents has been elucidated and available treatments have increased substantially over the past decades, they still represent a significant public health threat in this age of (bio)terrorism, indiscriminate warfare, pollution, climate change, unchecked population growth, and globalization. The key step to almost all prevention, protection, prophylaxis, post-exposure treatment, and mitigation of any bioagent is early detection. Here, we review available methods for detecting bioagents including pathogenic bacteria and viruses along with their toxins. An introduction placing this subject in the historical context of previous naturally occurring outbreaks and efforts to weaponize selected agents is first provided along with definitions and relevant considerations. An overview of the detection technologies that find use in this endeavor along with how they provide data or transduce signal within a sensing configuration follows. Current "gold" standards for biothreat detection/diagnostics along with a listing of relevant FDA approved in vitro diagnostic devices is then discussed to provide an overview of the current state of the art. Given the 2014 outbreak of Ebola virus in Western Africa and the recent 2016 spread of Zika virus in the Americas, discussion of what constitutes a public health emergency and how new in vitro diagnostic devices are authorized for emergency use in the U.S. are also included. The majority of the Review is then subdivided around the sensing of bacterial, viral, and toxin biothreats with each including an overview of the major agents in that class, a detailed cross-section of different sensing methods in development based on assay format or analytical technique, and some discussion of related microfluidic lab-on-a-chip/point-of-care devices. Finally, an outlook is given on how this field will develop from the perspective of the biosensing technology itself and the new emerging threats they may face.

show abstract

“…Modern methods consists of two approaches based either on the determination of marker acids [47][48][49] or on a comparison of chro matographic (mass chromatographic) profiles of a whole mixture of these compounds [50,51]. Both approaches were implemented; however, it is unlikely that they can be considered universal.…”

Section: Identification Of Microorganismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Minor acids (see [47,52]) are most often considered to be biomarkers; their identification against the background of intense analytical signals of nonspecific compounds in the presence of a great number of isomers (formally appearing in the shift of double bonds in the aliphatic chain and its branching) can, in our opinion, be unre liable. The biomarker approach is, probably, most promising for the recognition of certain genus and species of bacteria [48,49]. The approach to identifi cation built on a comparison of the profiles of fatty acid methyl esters is widely used and commercialized [50]; however, the available reference data cover only some of the known bacterial species (see [51]).…”

Section: Identification Of Microorganismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass spectrometric analysis of medical samples and aspects of clinical diagnostics

Milman

Zhurkovich

2015

J Anal Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Techniques and fields of application of mass spectrometric analyses of medical samples are con sidered for solving problems of clinical diagnostics. The determination of biomarkers is discussed. The fields of diagnostics in which mass spectrometry plays an important role, namely, human breath analysis, identifi cation of microorganisms, newborn screening, endocrinology, drug therapy, peptide and protein markers, and mass spectrometric visualization, are characterized.

show abstract

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method for rapid identification and differentiation ofBurkholderia pseudomalleiandBurkholderia malleifrom each other,Burkholderia thailandensisand several members of theBurkholderia cepaciacomplex

Cited by 6 publications

References 69 publications

Volatile-Sulfur-Compound Profile Distinguishes Burkholderia pseudomallei from Burkholderia thailandensis

Volatile-Sulfur-Compound Profile Distinguishes Burkholderia pseudomallei from Burkholderia thailandensis

Detecting Biothreat Agents: From Current Diagnostics to Developing Sensor Technologies

Mass spectrometric analysis of medical samples and aspects of clinical diagnostics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About