| Literature DB >> 22346711 |
María Pedrero1, Susana Campuzano, José M Pingarrón.
Abstract
The detection and identification of pathogen microorganisms still rely on conventional culturing techniques, which are not suitable for on-site monitoring. Therefore, a great research challenge in this field is focused on the need to develop rapid, reliable, specific, and sensitive methods to detect these bacteria at low cost. Moreover, the growing interest in biochip development for large scale screening analysis implies improved miniaturization, reduction of analysis time and cost, and multi-analyte detection, which has nowadays become a crucial challenge. This paper reviews multiplexed foodborne pathogen microorganisms detection methods based on electrochemical sensors incorporating microarrays and other platforms. These devices usually involve antibody-antigen and DNA hybridization specific interactions, although other approaches such as the monitoring of oxygen consumption are also considered.Entities:
Keywords: electrochemical sensors; multiple detection; pathogen microorganisms
Year: 2009 PMID: 22346711 PMCID: PMC3274141 DOI: 10.3390/s90705503
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Schematic illustration of impedance multiplexed detection of rat IgG, HBsAg and HBeAg (Yu et al. [16]).
Figure 2.(A) Electrical biochip microarray design and detailed zoom view. (B) Fully automated eBioChip Array analyzer “eMicroLISA” with fluidic, rotor valve, reagent reservoirs, and one hand plug and play ChipStick. Reproduced from Elshoz et al. [13].
Figure 3.DOX-PCA concept [32]. (A–C) represent DOX responses for high, medium and low cell concentrations, respectively.
Electrochemical multiplexed detection of foodborne pathogens.
| Impedance-based fieldable immunosensor | - | Response time < 1 min | 10 cfu | [ | |
| Impedance-based HRP-labelled immunosensor | Rat IgG, HBsAg, HBeAg | - | - | 10 pg mL−1 HBsAg | [ |
| Ag-PSA-based DNA sensors | - | - | 2.0 × 10−12 M oligonucleotides | [ | |
| IDA-AP amplification-based RNA microarray sensors | - | Fully automated detection in less than 25 min | 0.5 ng μL−1 (16 fmol) | [ | |
| IDA-β-Gal amplification-based DNA microarray sensors | - | - | - | [ | |
| IDA-AP amplification-based DNA microarray sensors | - | Fully automated detection in less than 27 min | - | [ | |
| SPE-AP amplification-based array DNA sensors | - | Total analysis time < 1 h | 0.75 nM | [ | |
| SPE-AP amplification-based array DNA sensors | - | Total analysis time < 1 h | - | [ | |
| Ag-PSA-based DNA sensors | - | - | - | [ | |
| HRP-amplification-based DNA microarray sensor | - | 0.75 pM | [ | ||
| HRP-amplification-based DNA microarray sensor | - | - | 2 fg | [ | |
| Hoechst 33258-based DNA array sensor | Mice caecum, faeces, heart and liver | - | 10−2 cfu | [ | |
| HRP-amplification-based DNA multiwell sensor strips | Natural beach water spiked with human faeces, and water and sediments collected from New Orleans (LA, USA) following Hurricane Katrina | 3 – 5 h | ≤ 1,000 cells | [ | |
| Esterase 2-amplification-based DNA array sensor | Meat juice | One working day | 500 cfu | [ | |
| Chronocoulimetric respiratory cycle activity measurements and PCA chemometric data treatment-based methodology | - | - | - | [ | |
| Chronocoulimetric respiratory cycle activity measurements and PCA chemometric data treatment-based methodology | - | Total analysis time 40 min | - | [ | |
| Microscale impedance-based metabolic activity detection-based methodology | - | 2 h | 100 | [ | |
| Electrochemical oxygen multisensor array and PCA chemometric data treatment-based methodology | - | - | - | [ | |
| Electrochemical oxygen multisensor array and PCA chemometric data treatment-based methodology | - | 8 h | 1×106 cfu mL−1 | [ | |
| Electrochemical oxygen dual sensor | Soil | - | - | [ |