| Literature DB >> 35888900 |
Lightson Ngashangva1, Bahaa A Hemdan2,3, Mohamed Azab El-Liethy3, Vinay Bachu2, Shelley D Minteer4, Pranab Goswami2.
Abstract
The development of robust bioanalytical devices and biosensors for infectious pathogens is progressing well with the advent of new materials, concepts, and technology. The progress is also stepping towards developing high throughput screening technologies that can quickly identify, differentiate, and determine the concentration of harmful pathogens, facilitating the decision-making process for their elimination and therapeutic interventions in large-scale operations. Recently, much effort has been focused on upgrading these analytical devices to an intelligent technological platform by integrating them with modern communication systems, such as the internet of things (IoT) and machine learning (ML), to expand their application horizon. This review outlines the recent development and applications of bioanalytical devices and biosensors to detect pathogenic microbes in environmental samples. First, the nature of the recent outbreaks of pathogenic microbes such as foodborne, waterborne, and airborne pathogens and microbial toxins are discussed to understand the severity of the problems. Next, the discussion focuses on the detection systems chronologically, starting with the conventional methods, advanced techniques, and emerging technologies, such as biosensors and other portable devices and detection platforms for pathogens. Finally, the progress on multiplex assays, wearable devices, and integration of smartphone technologies to facilitate pathogen detection systems for wider applications are highlighted.Entities:
Keywords: bioanalytical devices; biosensors; pathogens; responsive materials; smart materials
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888900 PMCID: PMC9321031 DOI: 10.3390/mi13071083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 3.523
Figure 1Schematic diagram for conventional and advanced laboratory-based techniques used for monitoring microbial pathogens in environmental samples. ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IMA: immunomagnetic assay; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; FISH: fluorescent in-situ hybridization; LAMP: loop-mediated isothermal amplification; NGS: next generation sequencing.
Advantages and limitations of conventional techniques used to detect microbial pathogens in environmental samples.
| Technique | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Culture-dependent Methods | ||
| Multiple Tube Fermentation |
Sensitive and sustainable Flexible sample volume Applicable to all kinds of water samples Broad indicators and alternative metrics Easy to perform Low-cost media |
Less precision Large population of bacterial species can affect the detection Blockers can reduce the growth of species Difficult to track slow-growing or VBNC bacteria |
| Membrane Filter |
Simple, and convenient Consistent results if the number of colonies are grown sufficiently Discrimination and recognition in the media Detection of small numbers of bacteria populations possible Sometimes not demanded more cultivating steps |
Frequent variations in adsorption affect the growth of target organism Less selectivity Difficult to detect growth in turbid sample Time-consuming |
| Microscopic examination | ||
| Microscopic examination | Easy, fast and direct | Unable to identify large proportion of the microbial community |
Advantages and limitations of advanced techniques used for the detection of microbial pathogens in environmental samples.
| Technique | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Immunological Methods | ||
| Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay [ |
Qualitative and quantitative methods Robust, flexible, simple to perform, and sensitive test Specific for the target organisms |
Cross-reaction of antibodies Require pre-enrichment step More vulnerable Restricted application for high-untargeted microbe levels No differentiation between viable and non-viable microorganisms is currently possible without pre-cultivation |
| Immunomagnetic Assay |
Ease of application Separating and detecting bacteria simultaneously possible Low instrumentation needs Efficient system: better interaction with target molecules |
Difficult to separate complex phenotypes Antibodies coated magnetic particles are expensive Require relatively large volume of sample and reagent Possible interference in fluorescent signal output |
| Nucleic Acid-based Methods | ||
| Fluorescence in situ hybridization |
Quick, sensitive, and safe test Consistent hybridization products Detection of VBNC and different microbes possible Possible to detect individual cells when ribosomal RNA is target It can combine with automated scanning machines that filter surfaces for fluorescent objects |
Monitoring is purely taxonomic and requires expensive facilities Difficult to create a particular and unequivocally restricted probe for a certain class of microbes A sluggish and complicated procedure due to involvement of an elaborate hybridization procedure for a specific probe |
| Polymerase chain reaction -based techniques |
Rapid, flexible, and cost-effective Sensitive and selective Detection of VBNC state Indirect detection of many pathogens possible RT-PCR technique allows assessing the viability of the cells |
Long reaction time Need adequate amounts of nucleotides from the targeted bacterium Some prior information is required to design primer Technical expert is required as it is prone to error and contamination Limited information on a pathogen’s infectiousness |
| Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification |
Stable, simple and specific Non-target DNA do not affect the DNA amplification Amplification takes place at isothermal conditions, so simple heating device is enough Applicable to RNA also by employing reverse transcriptase |
Carry-over contamination is possible, leading to false-positive results Complex primer design Multiplex amplification is challenging |
| DNA Microarray |
Improve the selectivity significantly High throughput analysis possible Rapid-results within 2–4 h Relatively low cost |
Absolute quantification is difficult Difficult to confirm viability of microorganisms Require highly skilled personnel, specialized and expensive infrastructure |
| Next Generation Sequencing |
Capable of massive parallel sequencing Quantitative and sensitive detection of genomic aberrations Applicable to a wide range of molecular biology |
Need to re-confirm the results with Sanger sequencing methods for clinical applications Homopolymer bias/errors High complexity of workflow and results |
| Enzymatic Method | ||
| Enzymatic Method |
Simple, fast (1 h), no trained staff or advanced tools, required Highly selective and sensitive Screening tests could be conducted without even any cultivation steps |
Enzymes are generally expensive and lose activity easily Any fluorescence signal enhancement techniques require prior growth of the target microbes Compatibility issue |
Figure 2Metallic nanomaterials-based pathogen detection system: (i) E. coli O157:H7 is detected by tuning the optical property of AuNPs by using tyramine as a crosslinking agent in microfluidic platform. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [97]. Copyright 2019 Elsevier. (ii) Colorimetric detection of bacteria explores the aggregation and inhibition of aggregation of MPBA-AgNPs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [98]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier. (iii) Aggregation of AuNPs is instructed by bacteria to undergo click chemistry and triggered in the presence of Cu+. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [99]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society. (iv) Schematic representation of the colorimetric assay of S. enteritidis based on positively charged AuNPs using lateral flow technology, (a) test strip structure, (b) interaction of (+) AuNPs- (−) S. enteritidis mechanism, (c) colorimetric and quantitative detection of S. enteritidis [100].
Figure 3MIP-based pathogen detection system. (i) Fabrication schemes and detection of E. coli following ECL principles. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [134]. Copyright 2017 American Chemical Society. (ii) (a) bacteria template preparation and fabrication, (b) POTs-modified imprinted PDMS film, and (c) interaction of bacteria with the interface and FRET surface. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [137]. Copyright 2021 American Chemical Society. (iii) Outline of SARS-CoV-2 and plasmonic optical fibers (POF) sensors in different matrices [143].
Figure 4Hydrogel-based pathogen detection system. (i) Biosensor system using DNA hydrogels: (a) photograph of the kit, (b) bead—packed microchannel, (c) microscopic image of bead—packed microchannel, (d) sample 1-Dengue and MERS, and (e) sample 2–Ebola and Zika [148]. (ii) Selective detection system of pathogenic and nonpathogenic bacteria-selective discrimination of E. coli K12 and EHEC. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [149]. Copyright 2018 American Chemical Society. (iii) Aptamer-based hydrogel barcodes to capture and detect bacteria. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [150]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier. (iv) Hydrogel assisted detection system of elastase and α-glucosidase: (a) chemical structures of substrates and matrices, (b) the fluorescence output of the shape-encoded letters under UV light. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [151]. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society. (v) Selective detection of bacteria using chitosan hydrogel-fabrication and investigation of the reaction on PDMS chip. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [152]. Copyright 2018 John Wiley and Sons.
Figure 5Responsive polymer-based pathogen detection system. (i) (a) Fabrication steps of the immunosensor using conductive polymers such as PEDOT:PSS, and (b) immobilization and detection strategies of E. coli using the nanoarray setup. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [167]. Copyright 2021 American Chemical Society. (ii) PDMS dendrimer-aptamer-RCA detection system in which PAMAM dendrimers are used to decorate the microchannels that enhances the E. coli detection 50 times. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [168]. Copyright 2017 Elsevier.
Emerging smart materials as pathogen detection systems.
| Detection Systems | Advantages | Disadvantages | LOD | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanomaterials based systems |
High specific surface area Sensitivity of the system may increase Less sample volume is required Hybrid nanomaterials may exhibit better performance Strong amplification of signals |
Immobilization of bio molecules on it is a challenge Cytoxicity and toxicity effect of many metal and metal oxides nanomaterials are reported Nanomaterials modified antibodies are expensive | 50 CFU/mL | [ |
| 10.7 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| 340 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| 102 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| 30 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| MIP based systems |
Highly sensitive and specific MIPs are very stable and cost-effective Good reproducibility Capable to tailor the recognition site for target molecules |
Less selective as compared to natural enzymes All molecules cannot be imprinted Time consuming to design and synthesis MIP Tedious characterization | 8 CFU/mL | [ |
| 1.7 µg/mL | [ | |||
| 11.12 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| Hydrogel based systems |
Possess high degree of flexibility Biocompatible Hydrogels can be injected and easy to modify |
Low thermal resistance Non-adherent Low mechanical strength Difficulty in handling and loading | 50 CFU/mL | [ |
| 100 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| ~3 aM in 15 min and 30 aM in 5 min | [ | |||
| Photonic Crystal based system |
Highly sensitive Fabrication does not require clean room facility Short assay time Wide detection array Relatively large bandwidth |
Challenges in constructing 3D scale Limited to specific frequencies Scattering loss at air–glass interfaces Tunability of the slowdown factor in given structure | 174a nm/RIU | [ |
| Not mentioned | [ | |||
| Not mentioned | [ | |||
| Not mentioned | [ | |||
| Ionic Liquid based systems |
Both conductor and binder Good catalytic ability and super sensitivity High thermal stability |
Relatively expensive as compared to conventional organic solvents High cytotoxicity Mostly limited to electro-analytical system | 102 CFU/mL | [ |
| 103 CFU/mL | [ | |||
| Responsive Polymer based system |
Multifunctionality Structural stability Facile integration in the detection devices Tunable detection sensitivity |
Tedious synthesis process of the designed responsive polymer Lack of toxicity data profile | 10 CFU/mL | [ |
| 102 CFU/mL | [ |
Figure 6Emerging detection approach for pathogen. (i) (a) Colorimetric detection of H. pylori using paper-based microfluidic device, (b,c) selectivity and sensitivity of the developed device. Reprinted with permission Ref. [187]. Copyright 2019 John Wiley and Sons. (ii) Vertical flow immunoassay (VFI) system to detect B. pseudomallei: (a) VFI platform and layers, (b) microarray design, and (c) operation workflow. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [189]. Copyright 2019 Elsevier. (iii) Impedimetric paper-based biosensor for bacteria: (a) surface modification of electrode surface and detection principle, and (b) functionalized screen-printed probe for bacteria detection. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [197]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier. (iv) Smartphone-based biosensor for S. aureus detection: (a) construction of sealed chamber and the bacterial detection cassette, and (b) detection steps of pathogen and quantification using smartphone. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [207]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier. (v) Polydiacetylene-based paper chip and colorimetric detection of pH1N1 virus: (a) fabrication and preparation of paper-chip, and (b) colorimetric detection of pH1N1 virus. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [208]. Copyright 2019 Elsevier.