4.7 Article

Development and characterization of a magnetic bead-quantum dot nanoparticles based assay capable of Escherichia coli O157:H7 quantification

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 677, 期 1, 页码 90-96

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2010.07.046

关键词

Magnetic bead; Quantum dot nanoparticles; E. coli O157:H7; eaeA gene; DNA hybridization-in-solution

资金

  1. Auburn University
  2. US Geological Survey
  3. Water Resources Research Institute [USGS-06HQGR0070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development and characterization of a magnetic bead (MB)-quantum dot (QD) nanoparticles based assay capable of quantifying pathogenic bacteria is presented here. The MB-QD assay operates by having a capturing probe DNA selectively linked to the signaling probe DNA via the target genomic DNA (gDNA) during DNA hybridization. The signaling probe DNA is labeled with fluorescent QD(565) which serves as a reporter. The capturing probe DNA is conjugated simultaneously to a MB and another QD(655). which serve as a carrier and an internal standard, respectively. Successfully captured target gDNA is separated using a magnetic field and is quantified via a spectrofluorometer. The use of QDs (i.e., QD(565)/QD(655)) as both a fluorescence label and an internal standard increased the sensitivity of the assay. The passivation effect and the molar ratio between QD and DNA were optimized. The MB-QD assay demonstrated a detection limit of 890 zeptomolar (i.e., 10(-21) mol L-1) concentration for the linear single stranded DNA (ssDNA). It also demonstrated a detection limit of 87 gene copies for double stranded DNA (dsDNA)eaeA gene extracted from pure Escherichia col( (E. coli) O157:H7 culture. Its corresponding dynamic range, sensitivity, and selectivity were also presented. Finally, the bacterial gDNA of E. coli O157:H7 was used to highlight the MB-QD assay's ability to detect below the minimum infective dose (i.e., 100 organisms) of E. coli O157:H7 in water environment. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据