2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-009-0264-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Immunomagnetic nanoparticle-based sandwich chemiluminescence-ELISA for the enrichment and quantification of E. coli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, the USDA microbiology laboratory guidebook (USDA, 2012) suggested methods for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) strains detections, which involving both serological tests and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedures, could take up to 28 pieces of equipment and materials and may also take one to three days to provide positive identification. Other methods, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) detection for E. coli in water samples (e.g., Pappert et al, 2010), PCR detection for Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes , and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in meat samples (e.g., Kawasaki et al, 2005), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification detection for E. coli strains from various food samples (e.g., Wang et al, 2012), have been used for the detection of foodborne bacteria. While useful, these methods are often coupled to culture enrichment procedures to ensure detection of metabolically-active cells.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the USDA microbiology laboratory guidebook (USDA, 2012) suggested methods for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) strains detections, which involving both serological tests and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedures, could take up to 28 pieces of equipment and materials and may also take one to three days to provide positive identification. Other methods, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) detection for E. coli in water samples (e.g., Pappert et al, 2010), PCR detection for Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes , and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in meat samples (e.g., Kawasaki et al, 2005), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification detection for E. coli strains from various food samples (e.g., Wang et al, 2012), have been used for the detection of foodborne bacteria. While useful, these methods are often coupled to culture enrichment procedures to ensure detection of metabolically-active cells.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As these holograms can be acquired by cell phone cameras and can also be transferred to a central computer for processing, this device has a potential for pathogen diagnosis in resource-limited settings. In one study, magnetic nanoparticles coupled with antibodies against the enterobacterial common antigen were applied to enrich E. coli cells from 10 mL water samples (Pappert et al 2010 In another study, a simple method was developed to concentrate a model virus in order to reduce the limit of detection of lateral-flow immunoassays (Mashayekhi et al 2010). An aqueous two-phase micellar system was In another study, comparison of the performances of hollow-fiber ultra-filtration and capsule filtration was performed for the concentration of 10 to 1000 Toxoplasma gondii oocysts in 1 L of spiked water, fresh surface water, and sea water samples (Shapiro et al 2010 …”
Section: Immunoassay-based Detection Schemes Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bioactive coating on the surface captures and magnetically 'tags' the target, enabling magnetic enrichment 8 , washing and resuspension into a clean matrix or buffer to facilitate detection.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%