DNA-probe-target interaction based detection of Brucella melitensis by using surface plasmon resonance
Introduction
The recent bioterrorist attacks and its escalating threat have generated the urgent demand for rapid, field-deployable, and cost effective methods for the detection of biological warfare agent (BWA) in a simpler and efficient manner (Orozco et al., 2015, Adducci et al., 2016, Singh et al., 2012). Several BWA are available, among them Brucella melitensis (B. melitensis) is one of the potential BWA which causes the brucellosis and this can be transmitted from animals to human beings (Wheelis et al., 2006, Inglesby et al., 2002; Thavaselvam et al., 2010). Therefore, reliable and rapid identification of B. melitensis is highly desirable amidst the current climate of bioterrorism. B. melitensis is the gram-negative, facultative and intracellular bacteria in the shape of cocci, coccobacilli or short rods, 0.5- 0.7 μm in diameter and 0.6–1.5 μm in length. Brucellosis is a major animal infection which founds various parts of the world (particularly in the Middle East, South and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Mediterranean countries of Europe, Central and South America) (Thavaselvam et al., 2010; Pappas, et al., 2006). Brucellosis has been recognized by several terms such as Malta fever, Gibraltar fever, Bang’s disease, undulant fever and by name typhomalarial fever because of its similarity to malaria and typhoid like fevers.
Although numerous analytical methods and techniques were developed for the detection of Brucella species such as ELISA (Chikweto et al., 2013), PCR (Tomaso et al., 2010, Al-Dahouk et al., 2007, Khosravi et al., 2006), combinatorial PCR (Mirnejad et al., 2012), conventional RT-PCR (AL-Garadia et al., 2011), and combination of PCR and ELISA ( Al-Dahouk et al., 2004). However, the practical application of these methodologies are limited by the low sensitivity and selectivity, complex sample preparation, skilled personnel requirement, slow response time, false positive, non-portability, operational complexity, and difficulties in real-time monitoring.
Screening of biomolecular interaction has been progressively much useful in environment safety, drug development, food safety, medical diagnostics and molecular biology research. A broad variety of detection methods are available for bio-molecular interactions using the processes of antigen–antibody, DNA–DNA, protein–DNA, protein–protein and protein–peptide interactions. Traditional methods and techniques usually necessitate fluorescent labeling and this needs more time, more cost and it can also affect the binding signals leading to false negatives. Furthermore, fluorescent substances may generate a background signal leading to false positives due to their constant hydrophobic nature (Piliarik et al., 2007, Pollack et al., 1999).
Labeling based methods are frequently utilized to pursue interactions between molecular DNA probes attached on a sensor surface and target molecule. This labeling takes place either on the target molecules directly before interaction or at the step after binding of the target on the sensing surface. However, labeling process is a time consuming and non economical and also disturbs the binding interactions, mainly with proteins (Cooper, 2002). So as to overcome these problems, optical biosensors, particularly surface plasmon resonance (SPR) based sensors are of great interest because it offers a promising platform for monitoring biomolecular interactions in a label-free and real-time manner (Tsouti et al., 2011).
SPR is an optical technique and it employs evanescent wave at the interface between a dielectric medium typically either liquid or air on a free electron rich metal like Au or Ag and is highly sensitive to small changes in refractive index (RI). In SPR system, biomolecular interactions studied, where probes or ligands are covalently bound on the sensor surface and analyte injected, this induces perturbations of the evanescent wave because of refractive index variation. Over the past decade, the utilization of SPR has been explored extensively in many diverse potential applications, ranging from biomolecular interaction analysis to environmental monitoring. (Kaur et al., 2016, Maesawa, 2003, Stern et al., 2016; Guo, 2012; Rich and Myszka, 2007; Li et al., 2012).
DNA association with proteins is a phenomenon of extreme significance. Certainly, approximately all features of cellular function, for example chromosome maintenance, transcriptional regulation, replication and DNA repair depend on the proteins interaction with DNA. To understand above biochemical processes, one needs a capable system to describe different type of interactions like DNA–protein interactions, hence, different techniques have been developed to explain such type of interactions over past years (Dey et al., 2012, Cooper, 2003, Amano et al., 1999). SPR permits synchronized screening of hybridization dynamics of immobilized probes and target interaction in real-time label-free manner (Pennacchio et al., 2014, Pan et al., 2010, Sato et al., 2006, Xue et al., 2014). The previous investigations for the development of SPR detection methodologies for BWAs (Gupta et al., 2010a, Gupta et al., 2012, Gupta et al., 2011b) and biological toxicants (Sikarwar et al., 2014, Sikarwar et al., 2015) are also lined up.
The aim of present investigation is to develop a SPR based methodology as there is no report in the literature for the SPR sensing of B. melitensis by the interaction between unlabeled oligonucleotide complementary DNA target or DNA PCR fragment with two different immobilized DNA probes in PBS buffer. Two different DNA probes of B. melitensis were covalently attached on the different 4-MBA/Au SPR chip and their use for the detection of complementary DNA fragments of B. melitensis is conducted. The parameters influencing the SPR response were optimized and finally KD and Bmax were calculated. Furthermore, thermodynamic parameter such as Gibb's free energy change (ΔG) involved in the interaction between DNA probes and target of B. melitensis was also deduced. As will be illustrated below, the new SPR based detection strategy addresses the challenges associated with conventional detection methodology and also to find out the best sensitivity and specificity having probe for SPR sensing and this allow for more accurate calculation of affinity constants during DNA–DNA interactions with the best sensitivity.
Section snippets
Chemicals and reagents
N-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-N-ethyl carbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC), N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS), 4-mercaptobenzoic acid (4-MBA), phosphate buffered saline (PBS), sodium acetate, ethanolamine, glacial acetic acid, glycine, sodium hydroxide, methanol and hydrochloric acid (HCl) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, India. SPR gold chips were obtained from Xantech Bioanalytics GmbH, Metrowingerplatz, Germany. DNA probes were designed in house and commercially synthesized as discussed in 2.3 Design of
Immobilization of DNA probes of B. melitensis on 4-MBA/Au SPR chip
Fig. 1(a) represents the various steps involved in the immobilization of probe 1 on 4-MBA/Au SPR chip and this process comprises of nine steps. Fig. 1(a), in the step 1, stabilization of baseline was performed for 120 s. For chemical binding between the 4-MBA adsorbed on the Au surface and free amino groups of probe 1, in the step 2, activation of carboxyl groups on 4-MBA/Au SPR chip was carried out for 900 s with EDC-NHS. In the step 3, washing was conducted with PBS and the SPR angle shifted
Conclusion
In summary, we developed a fast, sensitive, label free and real time SPR based detection methodology for detection of BWA B. melitensis based on the screening of complementary DNA targets by utilizing 4-mercaptobenzoic acid (4-MBA) modified gold (4-MBA/Au) SPR chip. DNA target of B. melitensis was characterized with DNA probe 1 and DNA probe 2 of B. melitensis immobilized on separate 4-MBA/Au SPR chip. The detection time for the DNA target with immobilized DNA probe 1 and DNA probe 2 by SPR is
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Lokendra Singh, Director, Defence Research and Development Establishment, DRDO, Gwalior-474002 (India) for his keen interest and encouragement.
References (46)
- et al.
Biosens. Bioelectron.
(2016) - et al.
Biosens. Bioelectron.
(2012) - et al.
Thin Solid Films
(2010) - et al.
Biosens. Bioelectron.
(2016) - et al.
Food Chem.
(2012) - et al.
Anal. Biochem.
(2008) - et al.
Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med.
(2012) - et al.
Lancet Infect. Dis.
(2006) - et al.
Opt. Mater.
(2014) - et al.
Sens. Actuators B
(2007)
Anal. Biochem.
Biochem. Eng. J.
Biosens. Bioelectron.
J. Colloid Interface Sci.
Biosens. Bioelectron.
Sens. Actuators B
Biosens. Bioelectron.
Anal. Biochem.
Clin. Chem. Lab. Med.
Clin. Lab.
J. Ani. Veter-. Adv.
Infect. Immun.
Trop. Biomed.
Cited by (19)
Plasmonic nanosensors for pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis
2023, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical AnalysisSurface plasmon resonance aptasensor for Brucella detection in milk
2022, TalantaCitation Excerpt :The limit of detection (LOD) for the SPR aptasensor was calculated as 27 ± 11 cells in one ml of milk sample. PCR product-based SPR sensor for Brucella achieved a LOD of 1.95 ng DNA [34]. Saberi et al. developed an SPR immunosensor with LOD of 100 cells/ml [13].
Introducing an SPRi-based titration assay using aptamers for the detection of Legionella pneumophila
2022, Sensors and Actuators B: ChemicalCitation Excerpt :Generally, the use of SPR for whole-cell bacterial detection suffers from inherent drawbacks such as the limited range of the evanescent electromagnetic field wave (~300 nm) produced by the instrument, the similarity of the refractive index (RI) of the bacterial cytoplasm, and aqueous medium, and the diffusion-limited mass transport of the bacteria to the metal-dielectric surface [13,56]. Although much research is dedicated to circumventing the aforementioned limitations, such as the use of nanoparticles, nanorods, Long Range-SPR (LSPR), and transducer surface modifications [2,5,15], several researchers also make use of specific molecules such as 16 sRNA gene or biomarkers such as outer membrane protein antigens to mitigate these problems and assess bacterial cell concentrations indirectly [29,32,53,54,62] The use of specific molecules and biomarkers, however, requires cumbersome extraction, purification and enrichment steps as in the case of RNA or DNA isolation. To overcome drawbacks from sample processing, in this work an SPRi-based titration assay is proposed for whole Lp cell detection.
Plasmonic biosensors for food control
2021, Trends in Food Science and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :The sensor showed a broad linear range from 100 ng/mL to 10 μg/mL with an ultralow detection limit of 0.90 pg/mL. Furthermore, techniques like microspotting or microcontact printing provide a possibility to functionalize a sensor surface with various oligonucleotide probes for a multiplex pathogen detection without losing the sensitivity (Piliarik et al., 2009; Sikarwar et al., 2017; Vidic et al., 2007). Detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is another highly demanded application of plasmonic genosensors because of the strict legislations on GMO authorization in many countries.
Critical issues in clinical and biomedical applications of surface plasmon resonance sensing
2021, Comprehensive Analytical ChemistryThermophoresis for characterizing biomolecular interaction
2018, MethodsCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, biochemical and biophysical techniques are attractive and developed dramatically to be the first choice in studying biomolecular interactions. Examples include spectroscopic techniques [13–18], surface plasma resonance (SPR) [19–21], isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) [22–24] and microscale thermophoresis (MST) [25–27]. This review will discuss thermophoresis in the characterization of biomolecular interactions.