| Literature DB >> 35361208 |
Kui Gu1,2, Zengxu Song1,2, Changyu Zhou1,2, Peng Ma1,2, Chao Li1,2, Qizhong Lu3, Ziwei Liao1,2, Zheren Huang1,2, Yizhi Tang1,2, Hao Li1,2, Yu Zhao1,2, Wenjun Yan1,2, Changwei Lei4,5, Hongning Wang6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salmonella Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) being one of the most prevalent foodborne pathogens worldwide poses a serious threat to public safety. Prevention of zoonotic infectious disease and controlling the risk of transmission of S. Enteriditidis critically requires the evolution of rapid and sensitive detection methods. The detection methods based on nucleic acid and conventional antibodies are fraught with limitations. Many of these limitations of the conventional antibodies can be circumvented using natural nanobodies which are endowed with characteristics, such as high affinity, thermal stability, easy production, especially higher diversity. This study aimed to select the special nanobodies against S. Enteriditidis for developing an improved nanobody-horseradish peroxidase-based sandwich ELISA to detect S. Enteritidis in the practical sample. The nanobody-horseradish peroxidase fusions can help in eliminating the use of secondary antibodies labeled with horseradish peroxidase, which can reduce the time of the experiment. Moreover, the novel sandwich ELISA developed in this study can be used to detect S. Enteriditidis specifically and rapidly with improved sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: Immunoassay; Nanobody; Nanobody-horseradish peroxidase; Phage display technology; S. Enteritidis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35361208 PMCID: PMC8973953 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-022-01376-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nanobiotechnology ISSN: 1477-3155 Impact factor: 10.435
Scheme 1Graphic abstract of the developed sandwich to detect S. Enteritidis in practical sample. a Nbs were screened by the phage display platform. b SE-Nbs and SE-Nbs-vHRP were produced by E. coli expression system and eukaryotic expression system in HEK293T cell, respectively. c Detection practical sample with the developed sandwich ELISA
Scheme 2Construction of phage-displayed library including two rounds PCR, digestion, ligation, electroporation, plating and collecting
Fig. 1Nbs library construction against S. Enteritidis. a Titer of antibody against S. Enteritidis in the immunized camel serum. b The first round PCR with approximately 700 bp fragment. c The second round PCR with approximately 400 bp fragment. d Nbs library construction counted by tenfold gradient dilution. At the seventh dilution level, 23 single colonies present on the LB plate with 2% final concentration of glucose and 100 µg/mL ampicillin, indicating that 23 phages particles have invaded the TG1 cells, which finally show the phage display library was 2.3 × 109 PFU/mL. e Identification of the correct insert rate of 48 colony by PCR with approximately 700 bp fragment
Enrichment of phage particles against S. Enteritidis specific nanobodies during four rounds of panning
| Round of screening | Input (PFU/well) | P output (PFU/well) | N output (PFU/well) | Recovery(P/Input) | P/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Round | 5 × 1011 | 4.2 × 105 | 8 × 103 | 8.4 × 10–7 | 54 |
| 1nd Round | 5 × 1011 | 3.6 × 107 | 1.2 × 104 | 7.2 × 10–5 | 3 × 103 |
| 1rd Round | 5 × 1011 | 7.2 × 109 | 6 × 105 | 1.44 × 10–3 | 1.2 × 104 |
| 1th Round | 5 × 1011 | 1.2 × 1010 | 5 × 106 | 2.4 × 10–2 | 2.4 × 103 |
Fig. 2Screening nanobodies against S. Enteritidis. a Identification the periplasmic extract of 96 clones to specifically bound with the S. Enteriditidis, with positive rate of 100%. b Alignment and classification of the amino acid sequences of 4 screened nanobodies based on CDRs. c Determination the binding activity of 4 screened nanobodies with S. Enteriditidis
Fig. 3Expression, purification and identification of the 4 recombinant nanobodies against S. Enteriditidis. a Analysis of 4 recombinant nanobodies expression by SDS-page. b Determination of 4 recombinant nanobodies by Western blot. c Detection of the 4 recombinant nanobodies specifically binding to the S. Enteriditidis by the indirect ELISA. d Identification the 4 recombinant nanobodies to bind another strain of S. Enteriditidis, three Salmonella strains and five other non-Salmonella strains
Fig. 4Construction of pCMV-N1-vHRP vector. The commercial vector pEGFP‑N1 changed into the vector to insert the main genes encoding IgG signal peptide, multiple cloning site, vHRP gene, HA and 7 × His flag
Fig. 5Production and characterization of the four nanobody‑vHRP fusions against S. Enteriditidis. a Detection of the four nanobody‑vHRP fusions expressed in the HEK293T cells by IFA. b Western blot analysis with anti-His monoclonal antibody. c The four nanobody‑vHRP fusions specifically binding with S. Enteriditidis by direct ELISA. d Determination the capacity of four nanobody‑vHRP fusions binding with the S. Enteriditidis by direct ELISA. e Identification the four nanobody‑vHRP fusions reaction with another strain of S. Enteriditidis, three Salmonella strains and five other non-Salmonella strains
Fig. 6Development of the double nanobody‑based sandwich ELISA to detect S. Enteriditidis. a The Nb-pair comprising SE-Nb9 and SE-Nb1-vHRP were chosen as capturing and detecting antibodies, respectively. b The concentration of 10 μg/mL SE-Nb1 and SE-Nb1-vHRP (1:50) were optimized for detecting S. Enteriditidis. c The specificity and cross-reactivity analysis with two strains of S. Enteriditidis, three strains of other Salmonella and five other non-Salmonella strains. d The standard curve of the developed immunoassay to detect S. Enteriditidis
Recovery of S. Enteriditidis in milk sample by the developed assay
| Sample | Spiked (CFU/mL) | Detection (CFU/mL) | Recoverya (%) | CVb (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skimmed milk | 1 × 106 | 1.08 × 106 ± 1.12 × 105 | 108.59% | 10.32% |
| 1 × 107 | 9.7 × 106 ± 8.25 × 105 | 97.02% | 8.51% | |
| 1 × 108 | 1.01 × 107 ± 8.38 × 105 | 101.06% | 8.3% |
aEach assay was repeated three times, the result of the recovery was the average of three replicates
bCV was the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean
Detection of S. Enteriditidis in skimmed milk after different enrichment period
| Sample | Controla | Enrichment periodb (CFU/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skimmed milk | 6 h | 8 h | 10 h | 12 h | 14 h | |
| ND | ND | 1.91 × 105 ± 2.57 × 104 | 5.07 × 106 ± 4.92 × 105 | 9.6 × 106 ± 8.73 × 105 | 2.75 × 107 ± 4.15 × 106 | |
a‘Control’ is skimmed milk sample without S. Enteriditidis used as blank
bEach assay was repeated three times, the result shows the average of three replicates
cND, Not Detectable
Fig. 7Detection of S. Enteriditidis of colonized in vivo in challenged Chickens. a Analysis the colonization of S. Enteriditidis in gastrointestinal tract. b Detection of S. Enteriditidis in other organs
Comparisons of the developed sandwich ELISA with real-time PCR and plate culture method by detecting the S. Enteriditidis colonization in challenged chicken
| Different assay for detecting | Gastrointestinal tract | Other organs | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stomach | Duodenum | Jejunum | Ileum | Caecum | Colon | Rectum | Pancreas | Heart | Liver | Kidney | |
| Developed sandwich ELISA | |||||||||||
| Real-time PCR | |||||||||||
| Plate isolation | |||||||||||
Note “−” represents negative for not detectable, “ + ” represents positive for detectable