| Literature DB >> 36076861 |
Mengtao Chen1,2, Xinyue Lan3, Longjiao Zhu3, Ping Ru1,2, Wentao Xu3, Haiyan Liu1.
Abstract
Living foodborne pathogens pose a serious threat to public and population health. To ensure food safety, it is necessary to complete the detection of viable bacteria in a short time (several hours to 1 day). However, the traditional methods by bacterial culture, as the gold standard, are cumbersome and time-consuming. To break through the resultant research bottleneck, PCR mediated nucleic acid molecular recognition technologies, including RNA-based reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) and DNA-based viability PCR (vPCR) have been developed in recent years. They not only sensitively amplify detection signals and quickly report detection results, but also distinguish viable and dead bacteria. Therefore, this review introduces these PCR-mediated techniques independent of culture for viable and dead foodborne pathogen detection from the nucleic acid molecular recognition principal level and describes their whole-process applications in food quality supervision, which provides a useful reference for the development of detection of foodborne pathogens in the future.Entities:
Keywords: DNA-intercalating dyes; dead bacteria detection; food safety; foodborne pathogens; polymerase chain reaction; viable bacteria detection
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076861 PMCID: PMC9455676 DOI: 10.3390/foods11172675
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Principle diagram of viable bacteria detection based on RT-PCR. (A) Schematic diagram conventional RT-PCR amplification; (B) Schematic diagram of electrochemical biosensor for detection of Cronobacter sakazakii by RT-PCR-triggered G-quadruplex DNA enzyme catalytic reaction [8].
Comparison of different PCR techniques for detecting viable foodborne pathogens.
| Type | Material | Time | Target | LOD | Effect | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RNA-based RT-PCR | RNA reverse transcriptase | 2016 |
| - | Shorter detection time, fewer detection steps and easier operation | [ |
| 2020 |
| 501 CFU/mL | Dynamic range was 2.4 × 107 CFU/mL–3.84 × 104 CFU/mL | [ | ||
| 2021 |
| 1 cell/mL in blood and 100 cells/g in stool | The method can directly and rapidly quantify | [ | ||
| DNA-based vPCR | EMA | 2017 |
| - | Reduced sensitivity when detecting UV-treated samples | [ |
| 2021 |
| - | EMA has no dye toxicity to VBNC bacteria | [ | ||
| PMA | 2021 |
| 100 per gram of soil | High specificity (92%) | [ | |
| 2022 | Multiplex detection | [ | ||||
| DyeTox13 | 2018 | - | Accurate assessment of the survival status of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria | [ | ||
| 2022 |
| - | It accurately detects the number of viable bacteria in UV-sterilized samples | [ | ||
| TOMA | 2019 |
| 1000 CFU/mL | It can work in the extreme conditions such as strong radiation | [ | |
| 2022 |
| 2.3 × 104 CFU/mL | It can be completed within 40 min at a constant temperature | [ |
Figure 2Schematic diagram of four nucleic acid intercalation dyes combined with PCR for distinguishing and detecting viable and dead bacteria. (A) Principal diagram of EMA-PCR for detecting viable and dead bacteria based on cell membrane integrity [10]; (B) Flow chart of multiple real-time detection of viable bacteria by PMA-PCR [14]; (C) Flow chart of DyeTox13-PCR detection of viable bacteria in sterilized samples [16]; (D) Principal diagram of TOMA-PCR for detecting viable and dead bacteria based on enzyme activity [18].
Figure 3Graphics of the whole process of PCR-mediated nucleic acid molecular recognition technology applied to the detection of foodborne pathogens.