| Literature DB >> 35608993 |
Emma J Blanchette1, Sydney C Sleiman1, Haiqa Arain1, Alayna Tieu1, Chloe L Clement1, Griffin C Howson1, Emily A Tracey1, Hadia Malik1, Jeremy C Marvin1, Steven J Rehse1.
Abstract
Five species of bacteria including Escherichia coli, Mycobacterium smegmatis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Enterobacter cloacae were deposited from suspensions of various titers onto disposable nitrocellulose filter media for analysis by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). Bacteria were concentrated and isolated in the center of the filter media during centrifugation using a simple and convenient sample preparation step. Summing all the single-shot LIBS spectra acquired from a given bacterial deposition provided perfectly sensitive and specific discrimination from sterile water control specimens in a partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). Use of the single-shot spectra provided only a 0.87 and 0.72 sensitivity and specificity, respectively. To increase the statistical validity of chemometric analyses, a library of pseudodata was created by adding Gaussian noise to the measured intensity of every emission line in an averaged spectrum of each bacterium. The normally distributed pseudodata, consisting of 4995 spectra, were used to compare the performance of the PLS-DA with a discriminant function analysis (DFA) and an artificial neural network (ANN). For the highly similar bacterial data, no algorithm showed significantly superior performance, although the PLS-DA performed least accurately with a classification error of 0.21 compared to 0.16 and 0.17 for ANN and DFA, respectively. Single-shot LIBS spectra from all of the bacterial species were classified in a DFA model tested with a tenfold cross-validation. Classification errors ranging from 20% to 31% were measured due to repeatability limitations in the single-shot data.Entities:
Keywords: LIBS; Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy; artificial neural network; bacteria; centrifugation; discriminant function analysis; filtration medium; partial least squares discriminant analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35608993 PMCID: PMC9411782 DOI: 10.1177/00037028221092789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Spectrosc ISSN: 0003-7028 Impact factor: 3.588
Figure 1.(a) Magnification of LIBS ablation craters on a nitrocellulose filter with a bacterial deposition in the center after centrifugation and concentration. A slight discoloration is evident as are four trapezoidal imprints from the centrifugation device used to localize the deposition. SEM micrographs of (b) LIBS ablation craters in a bacterial deposition of S. epidermidis, 250× magnification and (c) a 4000× magnification of the bacterial deposition in between the craters. The highly nonuniform nature of the bacterial deposition is evident in both (b) and (c).
Figure 2.A representative spectrum obtained by averaging 20 single-shot LIBS spectra obtained from one filter prepared with a one-fifth E. coli deposition (red) and a representative spectrum obtained by averaging 20 single-shot LIBS spectra obtained from one blank filter prepared with sterile deionized water (blue). All spectra were obtained in an argon over-pressure environment at a delay time of 2 μs. The same elemental emission lines were observed in both spectra, but the intensity of the lines was larger in the bacteria spectrum. The carbon line at 247 nm is due primarily to ablation of nitrocellulose filter substrate and its intensity was the same (within uncertainty) in both spectra.
Figure 3.Analysis of the relative intensities of emission lines measured in 1051 single-shot LIBS spectra acquired from nitrocellulose filters. The majority of these filters had bacteria concentrated upon them, each color representing a different bacterial species. Spectra from filters through which sterile deionized water was centrifuged were analyzed (dark blue symbols at left), as were spectra from “blank” filters that were not prepared with water or bacteria (black symbols at far left). Various concentrations of bacterial suspensions were prepared prior to centrifugation as indicated at the top of the figure and the bacterial concentration increases from left to right in this figure. Data plotted with the same icon were obtained from the same filter (usually 20 or 30 spectra per filter), whereas a different icon indicates data acquired from a completely different deposition on a different day.
Figure 4.A PLS-DA test of 139 single-shot LIBS spectra from seven filters exposed to only sterile DI water (red data, nominal predictor score of 1) and 320 single-shot LIBS spectra from 14 filters upon which various concentrations of E. coli were deposited (green data, nominal predictor score of 0). Data were acquired over the span of approximately a year. In the test shown, all spectra from the fourth filter of E. coli (samples 211 through 230) were removed from the model, which can be seen by the gap in the E. coli data. These unclassified data were then used to validate that model (the gray data to the right of sample 460). 100% of these data were correctly classified as E. coli. Every filter of E. coli and water was withheld one at a time and tested in this way to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
Sensitivity and specificity of PLS-DA tests of LIBS spectra to detect E. coli in DI water specimens.
| Single shots (459 spectra) | “Add-all” filters (21 filters) | “Summed” filters (21 filters) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 87% | 93% | 100% |
| Specificity | 72% | 86% | 100% |
Sensitivity, specificity, and classification error of a DFA tenfold cross-validation of LIBS spectra from five species of bacteria.
| No. of spectra |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400 | 80 | 113 | 80 | 189 | |
| Sensitivity | 60% | 64% | 50% | 66% | 65% |
| Specificity | 79% | 91% | 91% | 94% | 82% |
| Classification error | 31% | 23% | 29% | 20% | 27% |