| Literature DB >> 31574896 |
Bartosz F Grześkowiak1, Karol Tuśnio2,3, Anna Woźniak4, Marlena Szalata5, Daniel Lipiński6, Stefan Jurga7, Ryszard Słomski8.
Abstract
The intensive development and commercialization of genetically modified plants observed over the last decade has led to the development of transgenic detection methods that are rapid and sensitive. Among the strategies used for the detection/monitoring of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), surface plasmon resonance (SPR) meets the necessary criteria. This optical technique measures the changes in the refractive index in the vicinity of thin metal layers (i.e., gold) in response to biomolecular interactions occurring at a flat metal‒solution interface. Additionally, it allows the application of functionalized gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) in SPR research to enhance the signal intensity. In the present study, an SPR method, enhanced by the application of AuNPs, was developed to detect transgenic tobacco plants carrying a Streptococcus mutans antigen. The basis for the detection of the target DNA was the hybridization between the genomic DNA isolated from the leaves, stems, and roots of the transgenic tobacco and the biotinylated oligonucleotide probes immobilized onto a streptavidin (SA) sensor chip. SA-functionalized AuNPs coated with a second type of biotinylated probe were applied to increase the sensitivity of the detection method. Analysis of the results indicated that the constructed SPR-based sensor chip can potentially recognize complementary standard fragments (nonamplified genomic DNA) at concentrations as low as 1 pM. Thus, nonamplified transgenic DNA was detected using a label-free and real-time AuNPs-enhanced SPR biosensing method. This unique approach could be used to detect GMOs with high efficiency, even at a low detection limit, high repeatability, and with less time and a lower cost needed for each analysis.Entities:
Keywords: biosensor; genetically modified organism (GMO); gold nanoparticles; surface plasmon resonance (SPR); transgene detection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31574896 PMCID: PMC6955715 DOI: 10.3390/bios9040116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1Schematic presentation of the experimental procedure. (A): general procedure of detection of transgenic plant using AuNPs based SPR biosensor, (B): schematic presentation of transgenic DNA detection using SA SPR sensor and AuNPs.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) probes.
| Sequence (5’→3’) | |
|---|---|
| SA I/II F primer | TCTTGGTAGATCCCCTGCCA |
| SA I/II R primer | CAGGAGTTGTCACCCGAACA |
| SA I/II AuNPs probe | ATAAATCGTTG-Biotin |
| SA I/II SPR probe | Biotin-GTACAAGAACTTGTCC |
Figure 2Agarose gel electrophoresis of the PCR products. Amplified DNA fragments of 291 bp from the leaves of transgenic tobacco fractionated on a 1.3% agarose gel. Size marker: GeneRuler™ 50 bp DNA ladder.
Figure 3TEM image (A), size distribution (B), and UV‒vis absorbance spectrum (C) of the AuNPs.
Data from TEM (physical diameter), DLS (hydrodynamic diameter), and ζ-potential characterization of AuNPs.
| Sample | Physical Diameter (nm) | Hydrodynamic Diameter (nm) | ζ-potential (mV) | PDI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuNP | 20 ± 5 | 22.3 | −38.0 ± 4 | 0.090 ± 0.012 |
| AuNP-SA | - | 40.0 | −41.8 ± 4 | 0.235 ± 0.023 |
| AuNP-SA-I/II | - | 44.0 | −9.4 ± 4 | 0.331 ± 0.003 |
Figure 4Immobilization of the biotinylated SA I/II SPR probe on the surface of the SA sensor chip.
Figure 5Trend plots of the baseline and analyte response levels against the cycle number, grouped according to the regeneration conditions using glycine (A), MgCl2 (B), and NaCl (C).
Figure 6The relative SPR response against the concentration of the dilution of individual positive control samples and the DNA sample isolated from the roots of non-transgenic (C_R) and transgenic (57_R) tobacco (A). Overlay sensorgrams displaying the binding of the samples upon injection over the immobilized oligonucleotide probes followed by the enhancement of signal with the AuNPs-SA-I/II solution (B).
Results of SPR measurements for the dilutions of individual positive control samples and DNA sample isolated from the roots of nontransgenic (C_R) and transgenic (57_R) tobacco.
| Sample ID | Concentration (ng/µL) | RelResp |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.00019 | 70.0 |
| 2 | 0.00085 | 109.7 |
| 3 | 0.00377 | 172.2 |
| 4 | 0.01675 | 270.3 |
| 5 | 0.07432 | 424.4 |
| 6 | 0.32977 | 666.2 |
| 7 | 1.46319 | 1045.9 |
| 8 | 6.49203 | 1641.9 |
| 9 | 19.2 | 2578.0 |
| Startup | - | 0.0 |
| C_R | 145.38 | 40.0 |
| 57_R | 90.89 | 578.5 |
Results of the SPR measurements for the DNA sample isolated from the stems, leaves, and roots of non-transgenic (C) and transgenic tobacco on the SA sensor, with an immobilization level of 615.1 RU.
| Sample ID | Concentration (ng/µL) | Mean RelResp ± SD (RU) |
|---|---|---|
| 12_S | 153.53 | 965.4 ± 28.9 |
| 12_L | 258.46 | |
| 12_R | 106.57 | |
| 37_S | 158.95 | 1003.4 ± 24.9 |
| 37_L | 267.72 | |
| 37_R | 184.87 | |
| 46_S | 210.42 | 1326.1 ± 26.8 |
| 46_L | 280.67 | |
| 46_R | 140.5 | |
| 57_S | 110.4 | 684.5 ± 25.5 |
| 57_L | 350.21 | |
| 57_R | 90.89 | |
| 73_S | 140.85 | 883.5 ± 25.1 |
| 73_L | 298.14 | |
| 73_R | 99.84 | |
| 81_S | 150.42 | 958.4 ± 32.4 |
| 81_L | 280.43 | |
| 81_R | 97.21 | |
| C_S | 194.32 | 83.4 ± 23.3 |
| C_L | 280.83 | |
| C_R | 145.38 | |
| Positive control | 0.074 | 427.1 ± 31.0 |
Figure 7Mean relative responses of DNA samples isolated from the stems (A), leaves (B), and roots (C) of transgenic and non-transgenic tobacco. (D) Dependence of transgenic DNA concentration vs. relative responses.