| Literature DB >> 21255342 |
Tanja Kostić1, Beatrix Stessl, Martin Wagner, Angela Sessitsch, Levente Bodrossy.
Abstract
A microbial diagnostic microarray for the detection of the most relevant bacterial food- and water-borne pathogens and indicator organisms was developed and thoroughly validated. The microarray platform based on sequence-specific end labelling of oligonucleotides and the pyhylogenetically robust gyrB marker gene allowed a highly specific (resolution on genus/species level) and sensitive (0.1% relative and 10(4) cfu absolute detection sensitivity) detection of the target pathogens. Validation was performed using a set of reference strains and a set of spiked environmental samples. Reliability of the obtained data was additionally verified by independent analysis of the samples via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and conventional microbiological reference methods. The applicability of this diagnostic system for food analysis was demonstrated through extensive validation using artificially and naturally contaminated spiked food samples. The microarray-based pathogen detection was compared with the corresponding microbiological reference methods (performed according to the ISO norm). Microarray results revealed high consistency with the reference microbiological data.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21255342 PMCID: PMC3815810 DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.00176.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1Probe set validation. Predicted (weighted mismatch values as calculated with CalcOligo 2.03) and experimentally established probe specificity are shown. Black fill indicates expected positive results. Grey fill indicates probe–target pairs against which competitive oligonucleotides were designed. Thick black framing indicates false positive result.
Summary of the water spiking experiment.
| Spiked sample | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ml ONC/1 l | 0,1 | 0,2 | 0,4 | 0,1 | 0,4 | ||||
| Relative abundance [%] | Predicted | 100 | 100 | 100 | 27,43 | 27,43 | ||||
| Established by FISH | 100 | 100 | Not analysed | 37,5 | Not analysed | |||||
|
| ml ONC/1 l | 0,1 | 0,4 | 0,03 | 0,1 | 0,3 | ||||
| Relative abundance [%] | Predicted | 32,44 | 32,44 | 0,04 | 0,13 | 0,38 | ||||
| Established by FISH | 25,8 | Not analysed | 0,04 | 0,17 | 0,29 | |||||
|
| ml ONC/1 l | 0,1 | 0,4 | |||||||
| Relative abundance [%] | Predicted | 7,54 | 7,54 | |||||||
| Established by FISH | Not detectable | Not analysed | ||||||||
|
| ml ONC/1 l | 0,1 | 0,4 | |||||||
| Relative abundance [%] | Predicted | 32,58 | 32,58 | |||||||
| Established by FISH | 26,5 | Not analysed | ||||||||
|
| ml ONC/1 l | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | ||||||
| Relative abundance [%] | Predicted | 99.96 | 99,87 | 99,62 | ||||||
| Established by FISH | 99,97 | 99,83 | 99,71 |
Samples A to E were spiked with indicated volume of undiluted and samples F to H with indicated volume of 1:100 diluted overnight cultures (ONCs).
Values predicted by taking into consideration spiked volume and OD600 of the ONCs.
Relative abundance was established by counting the probe‐ and DAPI‐stained cells (samples A to C) or by using Daime software (samples D and F to H).
Samples A to H were spiked with one or more pathogens as indicated in the table. All samples were analysed using the microarrays and following the standard protocols as described in Experimental procedures. Several samples were re‐analysed using FISH in order to confirm the results.
Figure 2A. Relative sensitivity of microarray detection. Microarray images showing hybridization results from spiked samples F to H (containing Escherichia coli DSM 5313 in Burkolderia phytofirmans strain PsJN DSM 10436; Table 2). Relative abundance of E. coli in the samples was 0.04% (a), 0.13% (b) and 0.38% (c). Images were scanned at 100% laser power, 1000 V PMT and are displayed in rainbow colour mode. Setting for both brightness and contrast is 50%. Only one of the three replicate subarrays per microarray is shown. 1, internal control Msi_294; 2, Eco_1402; 3, Eco_1404; 4, Eco_1472; 5, Eco_1521; 6, Vmimi_1684. Even though the normalized values of the E. coli‐specific probes were below the cut‐off value of 10% (of the control signal, Msi_294), hybridization profile undoubtedly indicated E. coli. Weak, but clear signal was obtained with all four E. coli‐specific probes (2–5). Very weak cross‐hybridization was also observed with one of the Vibrio mimicus‐specific probes (6). However, this does not endanger high specificity of the detection since this signal is also far below cut‐off value (normalized signal value approx 0.4 to 0.7) and all other (three) V. mimicus‐specific probes as well as Vibrio spp. specific probe are clearly negative. These hybridization results also demonstrate how the multiple probe concept enables clear differentiation between weak signals representing low abundance pathogens and weak cross‐hybridization biases. B. Reliability of parallel detection. Microarray image showing hybridization results from spiked sample E (Table 2). Image was scanned at 100% laser power, 750 V PMT and is displayed in rainbow colour mode. Setting for both brightness and contrast is 50%. All three subarrays are shown. 1, internal control Msi_294; 2, Salmonella spp. specific probes (Sal_1451, Sal_1457, Sal_1950); 3, Escherchia spp. and Shigella spp. specific probes (Eco_1402, Eco_1404, Eco_1472, Eco_1521); 4, Vibrio mimicus‐specific probe (Vmimi_1684); 5, Pseudomonas aeruginosa‐specific probes (Paero_1207, Paero_1397); 6, Staphylococcus aureus‐specific probes (Saur_2106, Saur_2320). These results clearly demonstrate the potential for reliable parallel detection of many different pathogens. A weak cross‐hybridization observed with Vib_1684 probe (4) is not effecting detection specificity since the normalized value of this signal (1.0) is far below 10% cut‐off limit, and furthermore, all other V. mimicus‐specific probes (for reference see hybridization profile presented in Fig. 1) are clearly negative.
Summary of the food spiking experiments.
| Pathogen | Enrichment | Spike level | Microarray | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Half Fraser bouillon (24 h at 30°C) | 1–10 | Negative | 4 sets of samples |
| 10–100 | Negative | 3 different | ||
| Half Fraser bouillon (24 h at 30°C) + Fraser bouillon (24 h at 37°C) | 1–10 | Positive | 2 food matrices – cheese & pâté | |
| 10–100 | Positive | |||
| 100–1000 | Positive | |||
|
| buffered peptone water (18 h at 37°C) + RVS broth (24 h at 37°C) | 1–10 | Positive | 3 sets of samples |
| 10–100 | Positive | |||
| 100–1000 | Positive | 2 food matrices – egg & chicken | ||
|
| Bolton broth (48 h at 42°C; microaerophil) | 1–10 | Positive | 2 sets of samples |
| 10–100 | Positive | |||
| 100–1000 | Positive | 2 food matrices – chicken & pork | ||
|
| ITC broth (48 h at 25°C) | 1–10 | Negative | 2 sets of samples |
| 10–100 | Positive | 1 food matrix – pork |
DSMZ, German collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures; NCTC, National Collection of Type Cultures, London, UK; SLCC, Special Listeria Culture Collection, Würzburg, Germany [currently available at University College Cork (UCC), Environmental Research Institute, Cork, Ireland].