| Literature DB >> 36199343 |
Wenzhuo Wang1,2,3, Wei Yuan2,3, Debao Wang4, Xutao Mai2,3, Daoying Wang2,3,5, Yongzhi Zhu2,3,5, Fang Liu2,3,5, Zhilan Sun2,3,5.
Abstract
Clostridium perfringens is an important foodborne pathogen, which has caused serious public health problems worldwide. So, there is an urgent need for rapid and ultrasensitive detection of C. perfringens. In this paper, a dual-mode sensing platform using the synergy between fluorescent and electrochemical signals for Clostridium perfringens detection was proposed. An electrochemical aptasensor was constructed by a dual-amplification technology based on a DNA walker and hybridization chain reaction (HCR). When the C. perfringens genomic DNA was present, it specifically bonded with FAM-labeled aptamer which triggered the DNA walker on hairpin DNA (hDNA) tracks to start the synthesis of double-stranded DNA. HCR occurred subsequently and produced long-chain DNA to absorb more methylene blue (MB). In this cycle, the fluorescent signals of released FAM-labeled aptamer could also be detected. The synergistic effects of MB and FAM significantly improved the sensitivity and accuracy of the dual-mode sensor. As a result, the biosensor displayed an excellent analytical performance for C. perfringens at a concentration of 1 to 108 CFU g-1. A minimum concentration of 1 CFU g-1 and good accuracy were detected in real samples. The proposed ultrasensitive detection method for detecting C. perfringens in food showed great potential in controlling foodborne diseases. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36199343 PMCID: PMC9460978 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra04344k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Scheme 1Schematic illustration of the fabrication process of the functionalized DNA biosensor.
Fig. 1(A) Electrophoresis of specific primers: (1) water; (2) P. putida; (3) K. pneumoniae; (4) E. coli; (5) P. aeruginosa; (6) L. plantarum; (7) B. subtilis; (8) S. enteritidis; (9) S. aureus; (10) C. cochlearium; (11) C. perfringens. (B) Agarose gel electrophoresis confirmation of the functionalized DNA biosensor: (1) DNA walker; (2) aptamer; (3)–(6) H1–H4; (7) trigger DNA; (8) DNA walker + aptamer; (9) DNA walker + aptamer + C. perfringens DNA; (10) DNA walker + aptamer + H1 + H2; (11) DNA walker + aptamer + H1 + H2 + trigger DNA; (12) DNA walker + aptamer + H1 + H2 + C. perfringens DNA + H3 + H4. (C) Cyclic voltammetry (CV); (D) electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS): (a) bare CMBs, (b) DNA walker + CMBs, (c) BSA + DNA walker + CMBs, (d) HCR + BSA + DNA walker + CMBs, (e) MB + HCR + BSA + DNA walker + CMBs. 4 lg CFU mL−1C. perfringens DNA was used.
Fig. 2Electrochemical signal amplification effect of HCR reaction. 104 CFU mL−1C. perfringens DNA was used.
Fig. 3(A) DPV corresponding to different C. perfringens concentrations after the use of the electrochemical biosensors, (a)–(i): 1 to 108 CFU mL−1; (B) the linear plot of DPV current versus the logarithm of C. perfringens concentrations ranging from 1 CFU mL−1 to 108 CFU mL−1 using electrochemical biosensors; (C) the fluorescence signal corresponding to the different C. perfringens concentrations using electrochemical biosensors, (a)–(i): 1 to 108 CFU mL−1; (D) the linear plot of fluorescence signal versus the logarithm of C. perfringens concentrations ranging from 1 CFU mL−1 to 108 CFU mL−1 detected with the electrochemical biosensors. Error bars showed the standard deviation of the three experiments.
Fig. 4(A) Electrochemical signal specificity; (B) fluorescence signal specificity; (C) stability of dual-mode sensor, intra-assay (1)–(4) represented assays performed on the same batch using 4 MGCEs; inter-assay (1)–(4) indicated different batches of assays using the same MGCEs. 102 CFU mL−1C. perfringens DNA was used. 106 CFU mL−1 of the DNA of each sample was used.
Real sample analysisa
| Sample | Added (CFU g−1) | Found (CFU g−1) | RSD (%) | The culture-based method found (CFU g−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Chicken | 1 | 1.12 | 1.03 | 5.59 | 5.10 | — |
| 10 | 10.17 | 11.10 | 0.76 | 8.19 | 15 | |
| Beef | 1 | 1.34 | 0.93 | 5.72 | 8.94 | — |
| 10 | 13.61 | 9.93 | 1.71 | 1.00 | 10 | |
| Duck | 1 | 1.04 | 0.97 | 3.85 | 3.07 | — |
| 10 | 10.65 | 11.57 | 6.94 | 5.48 | 20 | |
| Mutton | 1 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 2.78 | 3.75 | — |
| 10 | 8.75 | 11.28 | 5.35 | 3.56 | — | |
| Pork | 1 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 2.90 | 6.46 | — |
| 10 | 9.08 | 11.50 | 4.92 | 4.34 | 15 | |
E*: electrochemical signal channel; F*: fluorescence signal channel. —: not detected.