Antibody-based detection assays are generally robust, a desirable characteristic for in-the-field use. However, to quantify the colorimetric or fluorescent signal, these assays require expensive and fragile instruments which are ill-suited to in-the-field use. Lateral flow devices (LFDs) circumvent these barriers to portability but suffer from poor sensitivity and subjective interpretation. Here, an antibody-based method for detecting Bacillus anthracis spores via amperometric signal generation is compared to ELISA and LFDs. This amperometric immunoassay uses antibody conjugated to magnetic beads and glucose oxidase (GOX) along with the electron mediator 2, 6-dichlorophenolindophenol (DCPIP) for production of a measurable current from a 0.4 V bias voltage. With similar sensitivity to ELISA, the assay can be completed in about 75 minutes while being completely powered and operated from a laptop computer. Immunoassay amperometry holds promise for bringing low-cost, quantitative detection of hazardous agents to the field.

References

1 Inglesby T. V., O′Toole T., Henderson D. A., Bartlett J. G., Ascher M. S., Eitzen E., Friedlander A. M., Gerberding J., Hauer J., Hughes J., McDade J., Osterholm M. T., Parker G., Perl T. M., Russell P. K., and Tonat K., Anthrax as a biological weapon, 2002: updated recommendations for management, Journal of the American Medical Association. (2002) 287, no. 17, 2236–2252, 2-s2.0-0036569530.
Google Scholar
2 Cieslak T. J. and Eitzen E. M., Clinical and epidemiologic principles of anthrax, Emerging Infectious Diseases. (1999) 5, no. 4, 552–555, 2-s2.0-0032870323.
Google Scholar
3 Peruski A. H. and Peruski L. F., Immunological methods for detection and identification of infectious disease and biological warfare agents, Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. (2003) 10, no. 4, 506–513, 2-s2.0-0037768708, https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.10.4.506-513.2003.
Google Scholar
4 Ivnitski D., O′Neil D. J., Gattuso A., Schlicht R., Calidonna M., and Fisher R., Nucleic acid approaches for detection and identification of biological warfare and infectious disease agents, BioTechniques. (2003) 35, no. 4, 862–869, 2-s2.0-0141995459.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Higgins J. A., Cooper M., Schroeder-Tucker L., Black S., Miller D., Karns J. S., Manthey E., Breeze R., and Perdue M. L., A field investigation of Bacillus anthracis contamination of U.S. Department of agriculture and other Washington, D.C., buildings during the anthrax attack of October 2001, Applied and Environmental Microbiology. (2003) 69, no. 1, 593–599, 2-s2.0-0037228945, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.1.593-599.2003.
Google Scholar
6 Peruski L. F. and Peruski A. H., Rapid diagnostic assays in the genomic biology era: detection and identification of infectious disease and biological weapon agents, BioTechniques. (2003) 35, no. 4, 840–846, 2-s2.0-0141995466.
Google Scholar
7 King D., Luna V., Cannons A., Cattani J., and Amuso P., Performance assessment of three commercial assays for direct detection of Bacillus anthracis spores, Journal of Clinical Microbiology. (2003) 41, no. 7, 3454–3455, 2-s2.0-0037818295, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.41.7.3454-3455.2003.
Google Scholar
8 Lim D. V., Simpson J. M., Kearns E. A., and Kramer M. F., Current and developing technologies for monitoring agents of bioterrorism and biowarfare, Clinical Microbiology Reviews. (2005) 18, no. 4, 583–607, 2-s2.0-27144496729, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.18.4.583-607.2005.
Google Scholar
9 Fischer N. O., Tarasow T. M., and Tok J. B.-H., Heightened sense for sensing: recent advances in pathogen immunoassay sensing platforms, Analyst. (2007) 132, no. 3, 187–191, 2-s2.0-33847326261, https://doi.org/10.1039/b615477h.
Google Scholar
10 Pejcic B., de Marco R., and Parkinson G., The role of biosensors in the detection of emerging infectious diseases, Analyst. (2006) 131, no. 10, 1079–1090, 2-s2.0-33749053691, https://doi.org/10.1039/b603402k.
Google Scholar
11 Jayachandran R., Anthrax: biology of Bacillus anthracis, Current Science. (2002) 82, no. 10, 1220–1226, 2-s2.0-0041347525.
Google Scholar
12 Swiecki M. K., Lisanby M. W., Shu F., TurnboughC. L.Jr., and Kearney J. F., Monoclonal antibodies for Bacillus anthracis spore detection and functional analyses of spore germination and outgrowth, The Journal of Immunology. (2006) 176, 6076–6084.
Google Scholar
13 Wang D., Yang R., Zhang Z., Bi L., You X., Wei H., Zhou Y., Yu Z., and Zhang X., Detection of B. anthracis spores and vegetative cells with the same monoclonal antibodies, PLoS ONE. (2009) 4, no. 11, 9, 2-s2.0-70649096185, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007810, e7810.
Google Scholar
14 Williams D. D. and TurnboughC. L.Jr., Surface layer protein EA1 is not a component of Bacillus anthracis spores but is a persistent contaminant in spore preparations, Journal of Bacteriology. (2004) 186, no. 2, 566–569, 2-s2.0-0347915663, https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.186.2.566-569.2004.
Google Scholar
15 Tamborrini M., Holzer M., Seeberger P. H., Schürch N., and Pluschke G., Anthrax spore detection by a luminex assay based on monoclonal antibodies that recognize anthrose-containing oligosaccharides, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. (2010) 17, no. 9, 1446–1451, 2-s2.0-77956401877, https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00205-10.
Google Scholar
16 Dang J. L., Heroux K., Kearney J., Arasteh A., Gostomski M., and Emanuel P. A., Bacillus spore inactivation methods affect detection assays, Applied and Environmental Microbiology. (2001) 67, no. 8, 3665–3670, 2-s2.0-0035433192, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.8.3665-3670.2001.
Google Scholar
17 Read T. D., Peterson S. N., Tourasse N., Baillie L. W., Paulsen I. T., Nelson K. E., Tettelin H., Fouts D. E., Eisen J. A., Gill S. R., Holtzapple E. K., Økstad O. A., Helgason E., Rilstone J., Wu M., Kolonay J. F., Beanan M. J., Dodson R. J., Brinkac L. M., Gwinn M., DeBoy R. T., Madpu R., Daugherty S. C., Durkin A. S., Haft D. H., Nelson W. C., Peterson J. D., Pop M., Khouri H. M., Radune D., Benton J. L., Mahamoud Y., Jiang L., Hance I. R., Weidman J. F., Berry K. J., Plaut R. D., Wolf A. M., Watkins K. L., Nierman W. C., Hazen A., Cline R., Redmond C., Thwaite J. E., White O., Salzberg S. L., Thomason B., Friedlander A. M., Koehler T. M., Hanna P. C., Kolstø A., and Fraser C. M., The genome sequence of Bacillus anthracis Ames and comparison to closely related bacteria, Nature. (2003) 423, no. 6935, 81–86, 2-s2.0-0038752613, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01586.
Google Scholar
18 Xu D. and Côté J., Phylogenetic relationships between Bacillus species and related genera inferred from comparison of 3′ end 16S rDNA and 5′ end 16S-23S ITS nucleotide sequences, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. (2003) 53, no. 3, 695–704, 2-s2.0-0038518210, https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02346-0.
Google Scholar
19 Morel N., Volland H., Dano J., Lamourette P., Sylvestre P., Mock M., and Créminon C., Fast and sensitive detection of Bacillus anthracis spores by immunoassay, Applied and Environmental Microbiology. (2012) 78, no. 18, 6491–6498.
Google Scholar
20 Bankar S. B., Bule M. V., Singhal R. S., and Ananthanarayan L., Glucose oxidase: an overview, Biotechnology Advances. (2009) 27, no. 4, 489–501, 2-s2.0-65549152131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.04.003.
Google Scholar
21 Castle J. R. and Ward W. K., Amperometric glucose sensors: sources of error and potential benefit of redundancy, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. (2010) 4, no. 1, 221–225, 2-s2.0-77950062222.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Amperometric Detection of Bacillus anthracis Spores: A Portable, Low-Cost Approach to the ELISA

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Amperometric Detection of Bacillus anthracis Spores: A Portable, Low-Cost Approach to the ELISA

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information