| Literature DB >> 35204598 |
Alexandra Ioana Cardos1, Adriana Maghiar1, Dana Carmen Zaha1, Ovidiu Pop1, Luminita Fritea1, Florina Miere Groza1, Simona Cavalu1.
Abstract
Rapid diagnosis and treatment application in the early stages of H. pylori infection plays an important part in inhibiting the transmission of this infection as this bacterium is involved in various gastric pathologies such as gastritis, gastro-duodenal ulcer, and even gastric neoplasia. This review is devoted to a quick overview of conventional and advanced detection techniques successfully applied to the detection of H. pylori in the context of a compelling need to upgrade the standards of the diagnostic methods which are currently being used. Selecting the best diagnostic method implies evaluating different features, the use of one or another test depending on accessibility, laboratories equipment, and the clinical conditions of patients. This paper aims to expose the diagnosis methods for H. pylori that are currently available, highlighting their assets and limitations. The perspectives and the advantages of nanotechnology along with the concept of nano(bio)sensors and the development of lab-on-chip devices as advanced tools for H. pylori detection, differentiation, and discrimination is also presented, by emphasizing multiple advantages: simple, fast, cost-effective, portable, miniaturized, small volume of samples required, highly sensitive, and selective. It is generally accepted that the development of intelligent sensors will completely revolutionize the acquisition procedure and medical decision in the framework of smart healthcare monitoring systems.Entities:
Keywords: H. pylori; conventional tests; detection methods; high sensitivity; nanotechnology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35204598 PMCID: PMC8871415 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tools for H. pylori.
Figure 2(a) Gastric mucosa showing reduced cytoplasmic mucin (blue arrow), reactive epithelial changes (red arrow), and a mix between acute inflammatory cells and chronic inflammatory cells (H&E, ob100×); (b) Gastric mucosa showing reduced cytoplasmic mucin (blue arrow), lymphocytes, and plasma cells (red arrow). Histological imaging for H. pylori (yellow arrow). H&E, 200× ob; (c) Clusters of cells with intracellular H. pylori were widely distributed within the lamina propria (blue arrow) and were especially abundant just below the superficial epithelial cell layer of the gastric mucosa (red arrow). IHC 100× ob. Images from private collection, Prof. dr. Ovidiu Pop, unpublished.
The main advantages and disadvantages of invasive, noninvasive, and innovative nano-technological based sensors.
| Current Diagnostic Methods | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Noninvasive tests | ||
| Urea breath tests C13 and C14 (UBT) |
the most investigated and best recommended test high sensitivity and specificity, excellent performances low cost useful in diagnosing and monitoring the therapeutic response |
usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), bismuth, or antibiotics within the previous two weeks reduces sensitivities The presence of urease from other Helicobacter spp. may influence specificity |
| Stool antigen test (SAT) |
high sensitivity and specificity, provided a monoclonal antibody-based ELISA monitoring the eradication of |
usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), bismuth, or antibiotics within the previous two weeks reduces sensitivities patient discomfort regarding specimen submission |
| Serological tests antibody detection |
excellent for some ELISA kits less good for all rapid tests usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), bismuth, or antibiotics within the previous two weeks does not reduce sensitivities |
poor positive predictive value can be used only after validation does not differentiate past from current infection or document eradication of the organism following successful treatment |
| Invasive tests (based on endoscopy) | ||
| Histology |
signs of an active infection immunohistochemistry increases accuracy |
its sensitivity is influenced by the biopsy site the presence of non-pathogenic, curved, gram- negative bacteria in the gastric lining affects specificity. detects inflammation, atrophy, metaplasia, and malignancy |
| Rapid urease test (RUT) |
evidence of active infection high sensitivity of biopsy urease tests ≥90% specificity is in the range of 95–100% |
Sensitivity is influenced by the location of the biopsy, the amount of bacteria present, and the vitality of the organisms prior to testing. The presence of urease from another Helicobacter spp. may influence specificity. Patients with recent gastroduodenal hemorrhage, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antibiotics, bismuth-containing compounds or severe atrophy, and intestinal metaplasia may have false-negative results. False positives are uncommon and could be caused by the presence of other urease-producing bacteria: |
| Culture |
high specificity of 100% evidence of active infection a reference test for detecting recommended every time as possible in therapy failure antimicrobial susceptibility testing possible |
Time-consuming Biopsy site, bacterial load, and organism viability during transport all affect sensitivity Depends on the quality of the biopsy sample and the environmental factors False-negative results (proton pump inhibitors, antibiotics, and gastroduodenal bleedings) |
| PCR |
high sensitivity and specificity fluorescence in situ hybridization assay (FISH) detect the mutation and antibiotics resistance |
Depends on the local availability of the equipment and technical experience Time-consuming Risk of contamination |
| Innovative methods | ||
| MALDI-TOF-MS (Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization—time-of-flight—mass spectrometry) |
discrimination and differentiation between |
Prior to analysis, It is difficult to isolate and develop culture conditions might affect the protein expression profile of |
| Electrochemical method |
small amounts/volumes of sample, portability, in situ assays (on-site detection) possibility for miniaturization, potential for point-of-care devices cost-effectiveness, simplicity, fast response, high sensitivity, lower limit of detection, high specificity (detection of a single base mismatch), biorecognition element: DNA probes, DNA aptamers, DNAzymes, antibody-antigen (BabA, CagA) no need for nucleic acid amplification |
limited self-life (some weeks) due to the bioreceptor (DNA or antibody-antigen); solution: the use of synthetic oligonucleotide-aptamers |
Nano-biosensors for rapid detection of H. pylori.
| Detection Technique | Biosensor Design | Detection Limit | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence/FRET (Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer) | CdTe Quantum Dots/NH2 and Tamra labeled oligonucleotide, hybridization with | 4.5 × 10−9 M | [ |
| CuInS2 Quantum dots/modified ssDNA/graphene oxide genosensor | 0.46 pmol·L−1 | [ | |
| Fluorescence/Lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) | Water-soluble Quantum dots-labeled urea-enzyme antibody | 5 mIU/mL | [ |
| Autofluorescence | Self-assembled glass-immobilized DNA-labeled AuNPs, hybridization with cDNA | 5.10 × 10−10 M | [ |
| Colorimetric detection | Thermophilic helicase-dependent isothermal amplification (tHDA) and AuNPs | 10 CFU mL−1 | [ |
| Aptamer-binding fluorescence methods | HPA-2 DNA aptamer with high binding abilities to | 88 CFU/mL | [ |
| HP4 Aptamer with high affinity to | 26.48 ± 5.72 nmol/L | [ | |
| Fluorescence microscopy, electronic detection, wireless | Graphene printed onto water-soluble silk, functionalized with antimicrobial peptides | ~100 | [ |
| Piezoelectric array | Sandwiched QCM, enzymatically amplified IgG in | Not mentioned | [ |
| Piezoelectric chemical sensors functionalized with sorbent films, measuring ammonia and carbon dioxide concentrations | Not mentioned | [ | |
| Electrochemical | β-cyclodextrin | 0.15 nM | [ |
| AuNPs/Ruthenium complex | 25 pM | [ | |
| AuNPs/Ruthenium complex | 12 fM | [ | |
| Osmium complex | 6 pM | [ | |
| Schiff ligand | 8 uM | [ | |
| Ti3C2Tx + AuNPs | 1.6 × 10−16 M | [ | |
| MWCNTs + Bi | 0.06 ug/mL | [ | |
| Au electrode | 34 aM | [ | |
| GO + AuNPs | 27 pM | [ | |
| Au electrode | 0.17 nM | [ | |
| ZnO tetrapods | 0.2 ng/mL | [ | |
| Polypirlindole carboxylic acid + MWCNTs + TiO2NPs | 0.1 ng/mL | [ | |
| rGO + PEDOT + PtNPs | 0.1 ng/mL | [ | |
| PEDOT + rGO + PdNPs | 0.2 ng/mL | [ | |
| Ni nanopillars | 200 ng/mL (urease) | [ |