| Literature DB >> 35625199 |
Karolina Filik1, Bożena Szermer-Olearnik1, Sabina Oleksy1, Jan Brykała1, Ewa Brzozowska1.
Abstract
In recent years, a number of bacterial detection methods have been developed to replace time-consuming culture methods. One interesting approach is to mobilize the ability of phage tail proteins to recognize and bind to bacterial hosts. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the current methodologies in which phage proteins play major roles in detecting pathogenic bacteria. Authors focus on proteins capable of recognizing highly pathogenic strains, such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Campylobacter spp., Yersinia pestis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella spp., and Shigella. These pathogens may be diagnosed by capture-based detection methods involving the use of phage protein-coated nanoparticles, ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)-based methods, or biosensors. The reviewed studies show that phage proteins are becoming an important diagnostic tool due to the discovery of new phages and the increasing knowledge of understanding the specificity and functions of phage tail proteins.Entities:
Keywords: RBP; bacteriophages; diagnostic; pathogens detection; tail fiber protein
Year: 2022 PMID: 35625199 PMCID: PMC9137617 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11050555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Classification of the Caudovirales based on the tail structure.
Figure 2Phage-based pathogen recognition tools. SPR—surface plasmon resonance; SEM—scanning electron microscopy; ELISA—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; MS—mass spectrometry.
Overview of methods based on RBP or TFP from different bacteriophages.
| Target Species | Capture Method | Detection (Visualization) Method | Limit of Detection | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sandwich fluorescence assay | Fluorescence (FITC-labeled probes) | 6.2 × 102 CFU/mL | [ |
| Magnetic beads coated with TFP | Bioluminescence (ATP release with luciferin/luciferase detection) | |||
| Magnetic nanoparticles coated with TFP | MALDI-TOF MS | ∼2.34 × 105 and ∼4.48 × 104 CFU/mL, depending on the strain | [ | |
| Incubation in solution | Fluorescently labeled probe | - | [ | |
| TFP-coated microplate wells | FITC labeling of bacteria | |||
| Magnetic nanoparticles coated with His-tagged TFP | Array of spin-valve sensors on the biochip | 10 CFU/mL | [ | |
|
| ||||
|
| Magnetic particles | Magnetic separation | 6.7 × 102 CFU/mL and 1.7 × 102 CFU/mL | [ |
| Fluorescent labeling by TRITC | Fluorescent microscopy | |||
|
| Fluorescent probe (RBP proteins from | Fluorescent microscopy | - | [ |
| Microresonator functionalized with the GST-Gp48 tailspike | Biosensors | - | [ | |
| RBP and GFP-coupled RBP (Gp047) | Agglutination assay on glass slide and fluorescent microscopy | - | [ | |
| TSP-coated gold/incubation in solution | SEM or SPR | 103 CFU/mL in case of SPR | [ | |
| Det7T loaded to the gold-coated surfaces of a CM5 chip | SPR | 5 × 107 CFU/mL | [ | |
| Metal beads conjugated with HRP-LTF; incubation in solution | enzyme-linked LTF assay (ELLTA) | 102 CFU/mL | ||
| Sf6TSP cloned with Strep-Tag coated microplate wells | ELISA-like tailspike adsorption assay (ELITA) | 103 CFU/mL | [ | |
|
| NanoLuc-RBPλ03Δ1-120, RBP conjugated with commercial luciferase | Enzyme-linked phage receptor binding protein assay (ELPRA)-luminescence | - | [ |
| HRP moiety directly conjugated to the RBPλ03Δ1-120 | ELPRA-colorimetric assay | |||
|
| Gp86 RBP fused with mCherry | Fluorescence microscopy and RBP-based fluorescent spectroscopy | - | [ |
Legend: GFP—green fluorescent protein; CFU—colony forming unit; TFP—tail fiber protein; SEM—scanning electron microscopy; SPR—surface plasmon resonance; ELPRA-enzyme-linked phage receptor binding protein assays; FITC—fluorescein isothiocyanate; MALDI-TOF MS—Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry; RBP—receptor binding protein; TSP—tailspike proteins; HRP—horseradish peroxidase.